Tag: IRA

  • PMQT – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    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. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a person who has committed a serious violent or sexual crime on two or more occasions must never be allowed to do it again? Does he accept that that is the overwhelming view of all our constituents, who are sick and tired of dangerous criminals being let out, to offend again and again, by out-of-touch judges, some of whom sit in the Court of Appeal?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Our aim is to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. We are concerned to ensure that, for example, repeat rapists are not released from prison if they remain a danger. At present, that can happen, and it is a matter of concern to the public. On those grounds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to proceed with his proposals.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity categorically to deny the lunchtime news reports that the Government are considering taking away all employment rights from millions of people who are employed by small businesses?

    The Prime Minister: We shall have some things to say on Monday about small businesses, but they will certainly not include what was the reported on the news at lunchtime.

    Mr. Blair: Can we–[Interruption] The proposal, as people will know, was made by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer, which I thought was clear, that that proposal is gone, and dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: I thought that I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or so ago. We shall be announcing a number of very attractive policies on Monday, but I have to tell him that that is not one of them.

    Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Prime Minister. The proposal was made two days ago, and now it has been dropped. We welcome that. Since we already have the President of the Board of Trade’s letter referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, can the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter be published so that we can see what other proposals have been made and whether they, too, are to be denied?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the proposals clearly because we shall announce them on Monday. They will be very attractive. I think that small businesses will welcome them. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that small firms create the vast majority of new jobs. They have done so for years past and they will do so in future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear that I carry Opposition Members with me.

    There can be no employment rights if there is no employment. We are seeking to maintain a fair balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers. We are therefore proposing to reduce or remove unnecessary burdens. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I am interested that Opposition Members would like to keep unnecessary burdens. No wonder that in every socialist Government throughout Europe, unemployment increases.

    Opposition Members would like to retain unnecessary burdens. I would like to get rid of unnecessary burdens, and I would welcome some support for that from the Labour party. Clearly, there is no support for that from the Labour party; burdens it likes and burdens it would wish to have.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the opting out of a single currency is of supreme importance to the country? Would it not be damaging–

    Hon. Members: Reading.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Would it not be damaging if other countries ignored this criterion? May I suggest with hope to my right hon. Friend that the issue of a single currency, if introduced, would be one on which we should hold a referendum?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that I believe that a referendum on joining a single currency could be a necessary step. My position has not changed. I still believe that it might be the right course. At present, the Government are considering the circumstances in which a referendum might or might not be appropriate. We shall tell the House of our conclusions as soon as we have reached them.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s rather different answer to the last question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he agree that we shall never build or strengthen the small business sector by encouraging employers to adopt a hire-and-fire mentality and treating employees as scrapheap labour?

    The Prime Minister: No one is seeking to do that. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. We are encouraging a hire mentality. That is why unemployment has fallen while it is rising in other countries. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what would create a fire mentality among small and large employers–the sort of burdens that would accumulate under the social chapter, which the right hon. Gentleman would like. Included would be the burdens that would be accumulated under a minimum wage policy, which, again, the right hon. Gentleman would like. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has a policy change to make, we shall be pleased to hear it. Labour’s plans for a minimum wage could destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, as would the social chapter, and both policies are supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are creating jobs, and the Opposition parties’ policies would destroy them.

    Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the depressing statement by the Provisional IRA yesterday, where do we go from here?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that I set out the other day were perfectly clear. Sinn Fein has the opportunity, provided that there is a ceasefire and that it meets the other criteria, of joining in the democratic debate. If it fails to take that option, the debate will not stop. The debate will continue with the constitutional parties. I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed. Were we not to proceed with just the constitutional parties, we would have permitted the IRA to stop the constitutional process. I am not prepared to do that and neither, in my judgement, is any of the constitutional parties.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Is it fair that Camelot is now able to pay out less than £10 to a player with three correct numbers? Bookmakers have to meet their obligations, so why should not the lottery operators do the same out of their obscene profits?

    The Prime Minister: The operators have to meet their obligations. The chances of someone winning the jackpot are much greater than the chances of not being paid £10 for three numbers, as Oflot itself set out this morning. The hon. Lady should know that it was Parliament that decided that the lottery should be administered by an independent regulator. The hon. Lady’s party was very keen that that should be the case. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I think that I recall that the Opposition voted that it should be dealt with by an independent regulator. It is for the director general of Oflot to consider how to protect players’ interests. That is what he has done. She should direct her question to him.

    Mr. Lamont: In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the European Commission on the success of its “Interfere in Britain” week? Should the first prize go to the European Court of Justice for its ruling on fishing or to the attack on the brand of Cheddar cheese, or should the golden fleece go to the European Commission’s astonishing dawn raid on the Football Association’s headquarters? Does the Prime Minister agree that there was never a truer word spoken by the European spokesman yesterday than when he said:

    “We are talking millions of footballs”?

    The Prime Minister: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I did not see that remark. I am rather sorry that I did not. I shall have the opportunity of discussing those matters with the President of the Commission later on this afternoon.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Has the Prime Minister seen the published explanation of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his reluctant vote with the Government on the Scott report, in which he says that he voted because the Prime Minister personally told him that the Ulster Unionists had held a gun to his head and that losing the vote would damage the peace process? Is that true, and, if so, does it square with the Prime Minister’s pledge to keep the peace process in Northern Ireland completely separate from intensely controversial issues here at Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that I shall deal with the peace process on its merits. I believe that that is the way that it should be dealt with–on its merits. That is the way it has been dealt with so far; that is way it will be dealt with in the future. I certainly have not seen any such newspaper reports.

    Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm, with regard to the important speech that he made in Hong Kong on Monday, which has given new confidence there in these last 500 days of colonial rule, that Britain has no current immigration problems with Hong Kong and that the 3 million people who already have visa-free access to this country abide by the rules? They come here as students, tourists or business men and they do not wish to settle here.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. In fact, in total, 1.2 billion people already have visa-free access to Britain. We have had no problems whatsoever with visa-free access from Hong Kong and I do not believe that there will be any in future. One of the principal reasons for taking this decision was to provide more assurance to people in Hong Kong, because I believe that such assurance will make it even more likely that they will remain there and continue to ensure that Hong Kong is a success in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation when he endorsed Chris Patten as the next leader of the Tory party in opposition, because he acknowledged that there was nobody in his Cabinet with leadership potential?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read what I actually said, he would know that that was not it. In fact I said:

    “There are a number of colleagues with outstanding ability”,

    and I am delighted that that is so. What upsets the hon. Gentleman is the fact that there is nobody with outstanding ability on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his far east tour. Does he accept that it is far better for this country to secure future jobs for British workers than to keep up the continuous carping criticism expressed by the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: What was most striking about the conference in Bangkok was the extent to which growth in the far eastern economies provides business and trading opportunities for this country. I think that many people throughout Europe have utterly failed to realise the sheer size and scale of the change that has taken place across Asia, and the opportunities that are provided as a result. During my visit, a number of business deals were struck between companies here and companies in the far east, and I very much hope that there will be more. Such deals provide jobs, security and prosperity for people in this country.

  • Mr Major’s On the Record Briefing in Thailand – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing held in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just at the outset say a little about the conference and why we had the conference. If one looks at the sheer scale of change in Asia and the changing relationship between Asia and Europe, the surprising thing really is that we haven’t had this conference many years ago. About 50 percent of Korean investment comes into Europe, comes into the UK; 40 percent of Japanese investment comes into the UK. So they are both very important countries both for bilateral trade but also in terms of investment.

    When one looks at the whole of the Asian block, we see their growth is a good deal higher than ours – by ours I mean Western Europe – their unemployment is a good deal lower than ours in Western Europe and their growth pattern is a good deal better.

    So there are a great deal I think of opportunities that lie in the Asian block that the European countries haven’t yet taken advantage of. And I think equally from the Asian point of view there is a great deal of technology and expertise in Western Europe that they could also link in with.

    The first thing I had the opportunity of doing when I arrived was to join in the signing of a deal worth something like 800 million US dollars with Trafalgar House, that is for a new steelworks in the area and it is I think the largest contract that the United Kingdom has had with Thailand at any stage. But I have no doubt that it is but the forerunner of others.

    Of the countries that attended this conference, something over half of the world’s GDP was actually represented by the countries present, so one can see the scale of the opportunities that were presented.

    In the conference itself I stressed the need for more trade liberalisation, more open markets, better educational, and cultural, and security links with Asia, and also the need for further tariffs and GATT reform and United Nations reform as well.

    The United Nations is very important to all of us, but the reality is unless the financial problems of the United Nations are solved, it is going to run out of money in November. So clearly reform is necessary and I reiterated many of the points that you have heard me make on previous occasions in different parts of the world about the need to put the United Nations’ finances on a sound footing and abolish those United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

    The next of these conferences will be a series of follow-up meetings between businessmen and others, but the next conference with the Asia-Europe group will be held in the United Kingdom in two years time.

    As a by-product of the meetings we have had here, I have had the opportunity of bilaterals with Helmut Kohl, Prime Minister Li Peng, the Prime Minister of Vietnam, the Prime Minister of Thailand, and of course Prime Minister Hashimoto this morning, we had a meeting this morning just after breakfast, and a series of informal exchanges with a number of the other Heads of Government.

    One of the most important things that actually comes out of most of these meetings is the opportunity to deal, in an informal setting, with bilateral matters rather than dealing either, with great respect, through officials or colleagues or over the phone.

    So it has been a very useful couple of days and I have no doubt that the conference that we have had here in the last couple of days is going to become institutionalised in the future.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us about the meeting we understand you have had with Mr Bruton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry, I also had a meeting with Mr Bruton. No, I can’t. We spoke for about 50 minutes. It was private stock-taking of where we have got and how we think things may develop, but neither of us are going to say anything publicly about the meeting, it was an entirely private meeting, just the two of us.

    QUESTION:

    Can you say whether you now agree with the Irish who seem to take the view that the Army Council statement the other day was not the last word on your joint communique on Wednesday and that it wasn’t a response to that, and do you take any encouragement from that if you do agree with it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will take encouragement when we see some positive response. We have been hearing cosy words from the IRA and their apologists for a long time. I am pretty fed up with the cosy words, I would like some positive action. So if that wasn’t their last word, good, but I will react further when I do get some further positive information from them. If it was a preliminary response then it was a very inefficient, ineffective and inappropriate preliminary response. If there is more to come, we will wait and see, but I will react when we have seen it. And what we really want now is not just friendly words, not the age-old Stalinist-type denunciations that we got the other night, but some practical indication that they understand the fears, the hopes, the ambitions of the people in Northern Ireland who have suffered from 25 years of their behaviour, that is what I want to see.

    INTERVIEWER:

    This seems a rather different tone of emphasis with what Mr Bruton is saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you asked me my view, I have given you my view. My view is that I want to hear something positive from them. I don’t know whether their first reply was preliminary or not, we will have to wait and see. If there is more to come, good, let’s wait for it.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Are you ready to give them the benefit of the doubt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will give them the benefit of the benefit when I see there is something to have doubt about. I think I have given them enough of the benefit of the doubt over the last few months. I have given Sinn Fein the opportunity to come into democratic politics. I want to see them take that opportunity. If they take that opportunity, all well and good, but if they don’t they needn’t expect that either John Bruton, or I, or the democratic process is going to hang around for them. We have set a timescale, we have set a timetable and we are going to proceed along that timetable, in that timescale with or without Sinn Fein and the IRA.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Can you foresee a meaningful and effective peace process which does not at some stage involve Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Obviously it would be better with Sinn Fein. The reason we have gone to so much trouble to involve Sinn Fein is that it is obviously more effective with Sinn Fein. But if one is to take the view that you cannot proceed without Sinn Fein, what we are saying is that Sinn Fein and people who throw bombs about the place whenever they wish can put a block on the democratic process, and I don’t accept that, Parliament doesn’t accept that, the Irish parliament doesn’t accept that and John Bruton doesn’t accept that. So we would prefer to continue with them, I would prefer a ceasefire, I would prefer them to start behaving like democrats, I would prefer them to join in the talks and start acting constructively. But if they don’t, I am not prepared to let the whole thing grind to a halt while they behave in that fashion.

    QUESTION:

    Were you aware in advance of the terms of the visa for Gerry Adams, and how do expect the United States to approach that visit now that he is being allowed in?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That decision is a matter for the United States, it is not a matter for anybody else. What I understand is that the United States have provided a short-term visa, they made it clear that there must be no fund-raising and they have made it clear that like the British government and like the Irish government they will not meet Mr Adams at Ministerial level. That is their decision, it is a question for them. We have made our position clear in the United Kingdom, so have the Irish government. The American government in terms of not meeting Adams have taken precisely the same view.

    QUESTION:

    So you did know in advance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to comment on inter-government information.

    QUESTION:

    In Hong Kong this weekend people are predicting you might get a rather bumpy ride. Do you have anything lined up for Hong Kong that might draw the sting from the protest there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People in Hong Kong are concerned. I don’t find that remotely surprising. After very nearly 100 years of British sovereignty, the British control of Hong Kong comes to an end, that is what the law says, that is the reality of life, it comes to an end in 1997. And I think it would be astonishing if people weren’t concerned about what the position is going to be, and astonishing if they didn’t bring their concerns to the Governor in the first place and to British politicians when they visit, So I will try and deal with those concerns and try and respond to them as best I can. But I think the most appropriate way to do that is to do it when I am in Hong Kong.

    QUESTION:

    Did you make any progress on the question of the Vietnamese boat people when you were talking to the Prime Minister this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think so, but I will respond on that in Hong Kong as well. It was certainly a material part of our discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Why did Britain wait until the last few years of its colonial rule before granting Hong Kong its democracy, and wouldn’t China have been more likely to have accepted democracy if it had been brought in say in the ’70s or early ‘80s?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well there was no demand. It is all very well to look back and say why weren’t things done in the 1960s and 1970s, it is a very agreeable pastime to do so, but the circumstances change, people’s attitudes change, people’s demands change. There was no demand for those changes until one began to move into the mid-1980s and then we have moved as speedily as we can and we are very keen to see a proper system of democracy in place.

    The other point I should make clear, I think sometimes people have the impression that on the due date in 1997 China assumes sovereignty, Britain disappears and we lose all interest in Hong Kong. Well let me say to you that is emphatically not how I see it. I don’t think we are going to lose interest in Hong Kong. We have had a long-standing interest invested in Hong Kong, and I don’t just mean in terms of cash investment, I mean emotional interest in Hong Kong, for a very long period, and we will continue to have that interest in Hong Kong. We won’t have the legal responsibility, that is a matter of fact, but we will still retain that interest in Hong Kong, we will still have massive British investments in Hong Kong, we will still be a friend at the court of world opinion for Hong Kong, not just in the short term but for the long term. And I hope that point will become increasingly apparent to Hong Kong. They are not suddenly going to be divorced, ignored, cut adrift when China assumes sovereignty. The eyes of the whole world are going to be on Hong Kong. This is a unique circumstance and right across the world, starting in London but everywhere else right across the world, people will be looking to see what happens to Hong Kong and how events fall out in Hong Kong and looking after the interests of Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty.

    QUESTION:

    Li Peng’s spokesman made quite clear that the issue of LEGCO and its preservation was closed, he said that yesterday, in their interpretation of the bilateral that you had. That is obviously not your view but there is obviously the suspicion that one is going through the motions. How would you respond to that interpretation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course if there isn’t an agreement you can put it as you did, there is always the suspicion one is going through the motion. We deal with these matters very seriously and we are not going through the motions at all, we continue to negotiate seriously. And many of the things of course that you might have said to me two years ago were blocked, finished subjects with no progress are now behind us because they have been dealt with. So we regard them as live issues that we continue to negotiate about.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on Northern Ireland – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments in Bangkok on Thursday 29th February 1996 on the subject of Northern Ireland.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about how Sinn Fein could re-enter the peace process]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well the choice now is with Sinn Fein. We have set out, with the Irish government, the way that we believe matters should now proceed. There is an option for Sinn Fein. They can decide that they are going to opt into the democratic process, call a ceasefire, meet with the other parties, decide to meet the Mitchell principles and deal with decommissioning, or they can decide to opt out of the democratic process. That is a choice for Sinn Fein and the IRA, they must make that choice, I cannot make it for them and neither can anyone else. But if they decide to opt out of the democratic process, they cannot stop it, it will proceed without them, and that position is now I think entirely clear. They must make their choice.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the IRA Army Council’s comments]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    From what I have heard of it thus far it seems, frankly, rather like a sick joke. For the last 25 years the IRA have murdered people, they have bombed people, they have knee-capped people, they have dealt with people in a quite disgusting and disgraceful way. And for them to claim that anybody is responsible for what has happened in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years, except them, will be received with incredulity by anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland and by the people who have lived in Northern Ireland. I think most people will be fed up to the back teeth with these comments of this sort that we get so repeatedly from the IRA. It is time for them to realise that for 25 years they have behaved in an appalling fashion. Nobody is going to give way to them, not now, not in the future, not ever. They either decide to behave properly and get into democracy or democracy will go on without them. The sort of nonsense we had from them this evening is a pathetic response to the hopes and dreams of the people of Northern Ireland. They owe it to the people who live in Northern Ireland to make a proper response and they owe it to them to do it speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he now wanted to hear from Sinn Fein]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt about the words everyone wants to hear. They want to say unequivocally, without any doubt at all, that they have given up violence and they have given up violence for good; that they are seeking to ensure that Sinn Fein becomes a properly democratic party with the same democratic rights and obligations of the other political parties, and it will then join in the democratic process. People have waited a quarter of a century to hear that from the IRA. I think they have waited long enough. The IRA had better tell us that is what they are going to do or the rest of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom had better realise we have to proceed without them. The time for waiting is gone.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Ballymena – 21 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Ballymena, held on Thursday 21st December 1995.


    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the Royal divorce issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing whatever further to say to the statement that was issued last night by Buckingham Palace. That crystallises the position, it is a matter that is being dealt with, I have nothing further to add on that.

    QUESTION:

    You must have something to say.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say to you this morning about that issue.

    QUESTION:

    John Wheeler said last night that the IRA had been behind the recent killings in Belfast but he did not regard them as a breach of the IRA ceasefire. How can you say that the IRA ceasefire is not being breached if you have acknowledged that they are killing people?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t know precisely who was responsible for that the other night. We have our suspicions but we don’t know. What is perfectly clear is that that was utterly unacceptable behaviour and there are several things that are being said and done at the moment by Sinn Fein and the IRA that are frankly, bluntly, incorrect.

    Firstly, they are suggesting that the only people who want them to disarm and to decommission is the British Government – that is not true, it is the overwhelming feeling of the people of Northern Ireland; secondly, they are saying that this is a condition recently introduced – that is not true; and thirdly, they are trying to maintain a fiction that I think most people in Northern Ireland will find laughable, that Sinn Fein and the IRA are wholly separate organisations. We know that not to be true, the people of Northern Ireland know that not to be true and they could be far better spending their time determining on how they can carry the process forward by deciding themselves that it is no longer acceptable behaviour to indulge in punishment beatings, it is no longer acceptable behaviour to decide themselves that they are the judge, the jury and the determiner of the sentence for people who, if they have committed crimes, should be before the civil courts. It is time that they recognised that the people of Ulster aren’t going to stand for that any more and I don’t believe the people of Ulster are fooled by the soft soap we get from them time and time again and we will make that quite clear.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Irish Prime Minister – 28 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, Mr John Bruton, held in London on Tuesday 28th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I first welcome you all here this evening. I am sorry this press conference is so late, but having reached the agreement we thought it prudent, before odd bits of it appeared out in public, to let you see the full text of the agreement we have reached and to answer any questions you may have.

    Can I first this evening thank the Taoiseach and his colleagues for coming over here, at such short notice, to launch the twin track initiative. If I can say so to the Taoiseach, I think it typifies his personal and, in my judgment, very courageous commitment to the success of the peace process.

    The Taoiseach and I first discussed the ideas which led to this initiative at Cannes towards the end of June. Work on it was carried forward by the Tanaste, Dick Spring, by Paddy Mayhew at the Northern Ireland Office, by officials of their departments and also by the Department of Justice in Dublin.

    I think as most of you know, reaching this agreement has been neither easy nor quick. In fact it has been an extremely difficult agreement to reach. But for both of us, I think John would agree with me about this, the most important thing has been to reach the right agreement, an agreement that in our judgment is going to generate further momentum in the peace process and help us address some of the difficult issues that lie ahead. That, we think, is the way to take us closer to negotiations on a lasting settlement involving all the political parties.

    The communique, which I hope by now you have seen, speaks for itself. I would just like to make a very few points about it.

    First, launching this initiative has been a truly joint exercise between our two governments, two governments whose work together has been a vital ingredient of the dramatic improvement of life in Northern Ireland over the last 15 months or so.

    Secondly, we intend to go on working together in that joint belief, and in the spirit of friendship which has carried us through a number of difficult negotiations throughout the last three years.

    The next point I want to make is simply this. In preparing this initiative we have both consulted very widely. This initiative does not represent the view of any one party, it is founded on the principles of the Downing Street Declaration and it does not cut across any of those positions of principle. We hope that this agreement we have reached will attract the widest possible cooperation on the part of everyone who genuinely wishes to consolidate peace in Northern Ireland.

    Let me also say that we appreciate the support that we have received from other governments. It is our two governments – the British and the Irish government – that carry the responsibility for this initiative and it is we who will have to make the decisions on the recommendations of the international body in due course.

    The international body will have three members. They will serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of the government of their country, and their recommendations to the Taoiseach and to me will be advisory recommendations. I am extremely grateful to Senator George Mitchell who has agreed to chair the committee, and also to the government of the United States for supporting his nomination. We are approaching through their governments two other eminent people from other countries to serve with Senator Mitchell and we hope to be able to announce their names very shortly indeed.

    It is now almost 15 months since the first of the two ceasefires in Northern Ireland. A great deal of progress has been made. But there are still very many problems to be resolved in Northern Ireland. Guns and explosives thankfully are not being used, but they have not yet been finally put away. There are almost daily episodes of violence and intimidation by paramilitary organisations which are far from the exclusively peaceful methods that we are seeking to engender in a truly democratic society. There is a great deal yet to be done to establish the level of accountability and responsibility which Northern Ireland would normally expect in running its own affairs.

    But we are now approaching a second successful peaceful Christmas throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. And it is I think beyond question that life in Northern Ireland has been transformed and that the people of Northern Ireland want both a just and a permanent peace. What they seek is a peace in which all parties and all people, irrespective of their denomination, can play a proper part.

    This initiative that we are launching this evening is about generating the confidence which will help us to achieve that lasting peace, the confidence that every party is committed exclusively to peaceful means and that the threat of violence can be relegated to the past, the confidence that the political parties can begin to find a way of working together and a basis which all of them can accept for constitutional negotiations.

    No-one, no-one, is being asked to abandon a principle. But if we are to reach agreement and carry this process further forward, everyone will need courage to take risks in the search for peace and I hope that they will be prepared to do so.

    The twin track initiative will undoubtedly test their readiness to do so. The Taoiseach and I will do all that we can to lead it to success, but achieving its goals will depend ultimately not only upon us but upon the parties and the organisations to whom it is addressed. I very much hope that they will respond to it and that they will receive the support of their communities in doing so.

    MR BRUTON:

    I am very pleased that we are able this evening to launch the twin track process. This is a process designed to lead, by the end of February, to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland. And the aim of those all-party negotiations is to reach an agreement which would involve the support of all the people in Northern Ireland, an agreement which will underpin the peace that people enjoy on a daily basis now in Northern Ireland.

    It is quite clear that there is a tremendous well of generosity amongst the people of Northern Ireland in the way that they relate to one another in their daily lives. Equally there is a tremendous generosity of spirit felt between north and south and between Britain and Ireland.

    What we need now is to move towards political structures that will give political expression to the feelings of the people, feelings which are expressed in terms of a yearning for peace, a yearning for reconciliation and a yearning for a way of life that entrenches mutual respect, that creates conditions in which both traditions within Northern Ireland will feel equally at home in their place of living and with one another.

    The very important message from this evening’s announcement is that we are now taking the steps necessary to restore momentum in the peace process. We are setting out on a road which is designed to overcome the difficulties that have prevented us up to now from setting a date by which we will be aiming to commence all-party discussions.

    Neither government, nor any of the parties, are being asked or expected at this point to move away from sincerely held views. What we are, however, doing is agreeing on a basis upon which we can move to resolve such difficulties as may have stood in the way of progress in the past. I would like to stress in particular, in regard to the international body, that it will, as paragraph 5 of the communique makes clear, be making an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. It will furthermore be consulting very widely on the matter and it will be receiving submissions from all of the relevant parties. And no limit has been set on the subject matter of those submissions.

    Of course the governments in the final analysis will be the bodies that will be making the decisions, but we are very grateful for the fact that we have been enabled to enlist such distinguished international assistance in overcoming problems that are there.

    Furthermore, I want to stress that the political track has, in the words of the communique, a very detailed and pro-active mandate. There is an open agenda, there will be detailed discussions with the parties in the fashion described to set in detail the preparations in place for the talks which it is our aim to be able to start by the end of February.

    I wish, in conclusion, to express my thanks to the Prime Minister, to John Major, for the enormous amount of time that he has devoted to overcoming these difficulties, difficulties which we identified at Cannes and towards the resolution of which we have been working resolutely ever since.

    I would like also, if I may, at a personal level to express my thanks to all of those who have assisted us in our work – the Tanaste, to the officials on the Irish and British sides, who have worked many long hours and spent very many sleepless nights overcoming the difficulties which have now been overcome and which have enabled us to have this important announcement today.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, where do we stand on Washington Three? Is it an absolute pre-condition for Sinn Fein’s entry into all-party talks that the IRA makes a first physical handover of weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, we haven’t changed our position on Washington Three. Let me try and make the point clear so there is no misunderstanding. We won’t be asking the international body, the decommissioning body, to question our position on the Washington Three criterions. The international body was not established for that purpose, it wasn’t established to make recommendations on when decommissioning should start. That is properly a matter for discussion in the preparatory talks and for a government decision, as the communique says. But the British government’s position on Washington Three has not changed. It is not a matter of anything other than practicalities. The end product of what we seek to do is to provide a mechanism by which we can move into all-party talks in due course. Until we are able to re-engender the confidence of people to do so, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration when we started upon this long road some time ago, we can’t actually move into those talks. And we see no other way, other than the physical beginning of decommissioning by Sinn Fein – that was our position and it remains our position.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, are you confident you have the support of Sinn Fein for this agreement and how does it differ from the agreement which seemed to be so near to signing in September which they appeared unable to accept?

    MR BRUTON:

    The agreement here is much more detailed. First of all its makes very clear that insofar as the decommissioning issue is concerned that the international body will be making a thoroughly independent assessment of this matter. And I want to emphasise that the body will be independent in the way in which it will assess this matter, it will be independent in the procedures that it will follow, and furthermore I particularly welcome the fact that both governments have agreed that they will consider constructively any practicable suggestion that could help bring all parties into negotiations on the basis of the Downing Street Declaration. I think that is a very important statement. Just as the British government have not changed their view on Washington Three, the Irish government has not changed its view either. It is, as I said in my opening remarks, a situation in which we have a different view on this matter. And what we have set in place here is a process by which we can move forward. I am not asking the Prime Minister on this occasion to change his opinion, nor is he asking me to change mine. What we have agreed upon, however, is a process whereby we can move forward and listen to all the views that are expressed.

    And what we have further both agreed together is that we will consider constructively any practicable suggestions that may be made, in any context, that will help to bring the parties together. This is a process aimed at solving a problem, overcoming and transcending an impasse and I believe if it is to work it must be approached in that way, as a process, not as something whereby all answers to all questions can be answered before the process has even started.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Could I ask the Taoiseach if the British Government continues to maintain its belief in “Washington Three”, does he see any prospect of Sinn Fein being involved in those substantive all-party talks for which the target is the end of February?

    1. BRUTON:

    As you can see, the purpose of the international body is to examine in an independent way the decommissioning issue, which is one of the issues that has obviously, as we know, been a problem but equally, we are agreed upon an intensive preparatory talks phase which will run in parallel with the work of the international body.

    It is our hope that all of the parties participating in that preparatory phase will recognise first of all that it is in their best interests that there be a process that anchors the peace that they now enjoy through making political progress and that furthermore the parties themselves will see in the preparatory talks phase an opportunity to offer comfort and reassurance to other parties who may be fearful of their intentions. unless there is that spirit of generosity in the approach to both of these tracks by all of the parties, the processes that the Governments have put in place will not achieve their potential.

    What the Governments can and are doing is putting in place a sophisticated, carefully worked-out twin-track approach which allows a framework within which the parties can offer one another the sort of assurance that is needed for the ultimate talks process to be a success but unless there is that willingness on the part of the parties themselves to operate this opportunity in a generous way, the Governments will not be able to achieve the progress that they wish to achieve with the agreement of the parties concerned.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you expect the actual process of decommissioning to have started in the period between the body submitting its report in mid-January and the end of February target date by which you want to see all-party talks launched?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The position has always been the same from the moment that we launched the Downing Street Declaration. The reality that we face is that there is not going to be sufficient confidence for all the parties to sit down and talk together in our judgement unless there is a beginning to the process of decommissioning. That has not changed as a position.

    Nobody is in a position to compel any of the democratic political parties to attend those talks; they will make their own decisions and it is perfectly clear to us that they will not all be attending those talks unless there is that process at the beginning of decommissioning unless something wholly unexpected happens. We have not found another way of building that confidence but that confidence needs to be built. No-one has yet found an alternative method of building it other than the physical start of decommissioning so that is why we regard it as a practical necessity. It is not a question of boxing anyone into a corner, it is a question of a practical necessity if we wish this process to continue.

    As the Taoiseach indicated a moment ago, what we are doing is creating a momentum and this is a very finely-balanced series of decisions that are being taken in this communique that the Taoiseach and I have reached with the commission – the international body – on the one hand looking at whether there is a will to decommission and how physically to decommission and then a range of political talks in the preparatory political track process but before the process proper can start we have set a target date and whether that target date can be met depends on the parties as much as us. We will do what we can to meet that date but it cannot be met unless a sufficient momentum and sufficient confidence is built up for all the parties to be prepared to come and sit down together.

    1. BRUTON:

    I would like to add that, as the Prime Minister stated his position and the position of his Government very clearly, it is the position of my Government that a physical gesture decommissioning of arms in advance of talks while undoubtedly desirable is not an attainable objective.

    That is our position at this stage. However, like the British Government, we are willing to listen constructively to that is said by all in both of the tracks of the discussion. We are willing to listen to what is said.

    I also would like to express the hope that the work that will be done before the commission in regard to identifying a suitable and acceptable method for full and verifiable decommissioning and also the indication that will be given to the commission by the parties associated with those who have held arms that they will work constructively to achieve a full decommissioning of arms, that that process will in itself help increase the level of confidence that is felt by those who were previously threatened by those arms in a way that will overcome this impasse.

    We have not come here today to pretend that there are no differences between us or between the parties. What we have come here to do is most emphatically to launch a process with the firm momentum and backing of both Governments which is designed to overcome those difficulties. I see no purpose whatsoever in trying to pretend that difficulties and differences do not exist; they do exist, they exist even between the Prime Minister and myself in our assessment of one particular small part of this problem but what is much more important is that in regard to the much more important issue, which is getting all-party talks started, intensively working to prepare for those talks, seeking in a confidence-building way to overcome the remaining obstacles to the participation of all the parties in those talks, on those more important matters we are entirely united.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Indeed, if it were not for those difficulties and those differences, no doubt we would have cracked this problem some years ago.

    QUESTION (John Pienaar, BBC):

    In your fundamental views on this question, are you not adopting entirely contradictory interpretations of the remit of the commission in that Prime Minister Major takes the view it is no part of the work of that commission to consider whether by the beginning of decommissioning there should be a precondition for political talks and the Taoiseach holds to the view that that need not be a stumbling block? Whose interpretation should Sinn Fein believe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are misinterpreting what the Taoiseach said.

    1. BRUTON:

    Could I offer you as an answer to your question the text of the communique. I would invite you to read paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 and you will see there very clearly an answer and I would like to start with paragraph 5.

    Paragraph 5 says that the two Governments have agreed to establish an international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. That is the governing paragraph- that sets out clearly the issue. It is absolutely plain that the commission will establish its own procedures, that people making submissions to the commission will be able to make submissions on any matter that is relevant in their view but equally, the Prime Minister has made the position of his Government in regard to one aspect of the matter quite clear. I have made my position clear. What this process is about is problem-solving. We haven’t solved the problem. Now we are putting in place a process the aim of which is to solve the problem.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And paragraph 7 is quite explicit as well, John, if you read it.

    QUESTION (John Reid – RTE):

    Taoiseach, Gerry Adams said on RTE tonight that he was of briefed on the contents of the joint communique. Is that the base and are you worried that he might say no?

    1. BRUTON:

    The position is that this is an agreement between the Irish and British Governments. We have been negotiating very intensively on this matter up until the time that we reached final agreement which was I think at approximately 8 o’clock and obviously while we have been consulting the Irish Government has been consulting with all of the parties in varying degrees of intensity including consulting with Sinn Fein. The only people with whom we have been consulting in full in terms of every aspect of the matter has of course been the people with whom we are reaching the agreement, namely the British Government.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made the point earlier that everyone is going to have to have some courage if we are going to be able to move forward. That includes Mr. Adams, I hope he will show it.

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

    Prime Minister and Taoiseach, given the timing of this announcement and the fact that it has not looked throughout the last few days as though you would reach this conclusion today, has the US Administration been involved in any way in using its good offices to achieve an agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can tell you we have had no pressure whatsoever from the United States Administration to reach an agreement, none whatsoever.

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

    If I might respectfully say so, that doesn’t quite answer my question. Have they been involved in discussions, for example, with the Irish Government or leaders of nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not with us.

    1. BRUTON:

    I might say that I did have a conversation with President Clinton last week. Personally, I would wish to express my appreciation of the interest that the US Administration has shown in the Peace process generally but I would also stress that this is an agreement that has been reached between our two Governments.

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

    May I ask the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach if neither Government has changed its position fundamentally and if the United States Administration has had really little bearing on the outcome of your talks today and over recent weeks, why is it that you feel it possible to publish this communique tonight when you weren’t able to publish it yesterday. What has changed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We agreed it today. It is quite difficult to publish before you have agreed it.

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

    What has changed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As of last night, we had five or six points outstanding. We reached agreement on those points during the course of the discussions the Taoiseach and I had this morning, this afternoon, this evening and in the series of discussions that our officials have had after reference to us throughout the day.

    There has been intensive work on this on and off for ten days, very intensive work. Throughout the whole of Friday our officials were meeting with constant reference to us, throughout the whole of Saturday – there was more golf wrecked over the weekend than there normally is on these occasions – and a great many discussions between the Taoiseach and I over the last few days.

    1. BRUTON:

    We have done wonders for the revenue of the Tele [indistinct] and British Telecom!

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have gradually whittled away the points of difference that existed. There has been a will to reach agreement for a long time. Gradually we have moved towards it. As you get closer to it, a momentum builds and we were keen to build on that momentum and reached an agreement at around 8 o’clock this evening.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – SKY NEWS):

    Can I ask you both separately where you place the Irish and British security forces in this political equation of arms silenced by the cease-fire?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are not there. These are not the arms we are talking about. These are the paramilitary arms that we are talking about in this. The arms of the Irish Government and the British Government are the arms borne by legitimate nation states, they are not subject to negotiation.

    1. BRUTON:

    That is my position too. We have, however, emphasised paragraph 9 of the communique that both Irish and British Governments reaffirm their willingness to continue to take responsive measures advised by their respective security authorities as the threat of armed activity from other sources reduces. That draws a clear distinction which I think is very important and one that I have drawn on many occasions in the Dail and elsewhere between the arms held in Ireland by legitimately authorised authorities and other arms.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is an entirely agreed position between us and has been throughout.

    If I could just add to that point, over the last year or so, because of the changed security situation in Northern Ireland and as a result of advice from the GOC and the Chief Constable, we have been able to reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland but that has been solely as a result of the changed security needs in Northern Ireland and the military advice that we have I received from the Commanding Officer there.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    Could I ask both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister whither they think that the agreement they have now reached will succeed in averting the threat of a resumption of violence and their assessment of how close we were to a resumption of violence without it?

    1. BRUTON:

    My view is that what we are doing here is setting in place a path towards a political process of negotiation that will solve the underlying problem. This approach on our part has not been motivated by any fear of imminent resumption of violence.

    As far as the Irish Government is concerned, we have had solemn statements made by myself and by my predecessor in conjunction with the leader of the SDLP and the leader of Sinn Fein in which Sinn Fein very clearly commits itself to exclusively democratic methods of political action. Those declarations which I have placed my faith in clearly exclude any support on the part of Sinn Fein for a resumption of violence associated with their political objectives.

    It is very important for people to look clearly at the texts that Gerry Adams signed in conjunction with myself and John Hume on that matter. Those texts clearly exclude any possibility of support on their part for a return to violence and I want to make it clear that we have been proceeding in all that we are doing here and elsewhere on the assumption that those solemn declarations are sincere and mean what they say. If any other assumption were the case, we would not be proceeding as we are proceeding and that is why, because of that assumption, we have put so much effort into getting Sinn Fein into political talks. The whole objective of this process is to create conditions in which all of the parties, including Sinn Fein, can sit around the table and work for their future but that is on the assumption that I have just made about their intentions.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Neither the Taoiseach nor I were affected in the slightest in our discussions and our negotiations by the threat of a return to violence; that was not a motivating factor in any way in the agreement that we reached.

    There have been the occasional hawkish noises made over the last few weeks, it is difficult to determine whether they were genuine or whether they were part of a negotiating pattern but in any event it did not affect the discussions we had or the agreement that we have reached.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, isn’t it time now to meet Gerry Adams?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    QUESTION (Same Man):

    Why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For the same reason I have given in the past. In due course the time will come. It is not here yet.

    When Mr. Adams and Sinn Fein and the IRA begin the decommissioning of their arms, then a different set of circumstances will apply but that hasn’t been reached yet. I look forward to the day when it does.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview on Northern Ireland – 13 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview on Northern Ireland, held on 13th October 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word about the events of the last few hours. It is clearly extremely good news that we have the statement that we have all seen this morning from the paramilitaries. I am delighted about that, another very important part of the jigsaw has fallen into place.
    What we need to do is to absorb what has happened, consider it and them decide how we move forward. We will do that in our own time and our own way but I am delighted at the news we have heard this morning. Now I will take just a couple of questions.

    QUESTION:

    [Prime Minister, is it now a working assumption that the IRA ceasefire is permanent?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I am ready to make that assumption, I will make it publicly.

    QUESTION:

    [Prime Minister, may I ask you, what is the next step you hope for?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, firstly, we must analyse precisely what is being said this morning, precisely what it may mean. Just a few months ago, people were saying we would make no progress at all, they said the Downing Street Declaration wouldn’t work. We have taken it cautiously, we have taken it slowly. I believe one of the reasons that we have made the progress that we are now beginning to see is precisely for that reason. So we don’t intend to be pushed. Today is unalloyed, good news. I don’t detract from it in any way but we must analyse it, consider it and then carefully decide with clear realism what is the best way to move forward. That is what we propose to do. As soon as we have down that, we will make it perfectly clear what we have in mind.

    QUESTION:

    [Prime Minister, the IRA joined the process through Sinn Fein. It is much harder to see how the Loyalist gunmen get to the talking process?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, you raised perfectly one of the points that’s worthy of consideration before you comment on it, that is exactly right. Sinn Fein operate as a political party getting 10% of the vote in the north of Ireland, and claim that they will be able to speak for the IRA. That is not the case with the Loyalist paramilitaries. That’s one of the matters that we have to discuss.

    QUESTION:

    [Will you be speaking to the Taoiseach?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I may well speak to the Taoiseach – it is by no means certain I will. We speak quite regularly. Whether we speak later today I am not quite sure.

    QUESTION:

    [Despite caution Prime Minister, overall a very good day?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, beyond any doubt at all it is extremely good news. And a few months ago, very few people would have imagined that we would have been talking in a situation in which there is an IRA ceasefire and a Loyalist paramilitary ceasefire, with a genuine hope that we may be able, after examining these matters, to move forward. We couldn’t have imagined it some time ago.

    QUESTION:

    [Unclear, but regarding the IRA qualification requirements which had been missed on August 31st 1994]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We still have to reach the situation where we are satisfied it’s permanent. When we have reached that situation I will make a judgement upon those matters. But I repeat the point I made a moment ago, if we snatch at these things, it is going to slip away. We need to retain the confidence and trust of all the people in Northern Ireland and they expect us to be cautious. They have had 25 years of misery with bombings and killings in Northern Ireland. I think it is right to take this at a measured pace and I propose to continue doing so. Thank you all very much indeed.

  • PMQT – 10 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

    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. McFall : Now that the Minister for open government has given an entirely new meaning to the phrase, “lying in state”, does the Prime Minister agree that the democratic process is undermined if Ministers imply that concealing the truth from the House is acceptable? Does he accept that it is a lie that the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, ever lied to this House? If so, will he apologise to the former distinguished Prime Minister for that slur?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may regret, on reflection, the way in which he phrased his question– [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not regret it, I believe that they should. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not the case now, nor has it been in the past, that Ministers willingly mislead this House, and no one has suggested that that is the case.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Bearing in mind the fact that, last night, the IRA launched yet another vicious terrorist attack endangering the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, were not the Opposition, at exactly same time, voting against the very measure which our security forces need to combat this evil? Are not the Opposition soft on terrorism and soft on crime?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the attack that was launched yesterday on Heathrow airport by the IRA will receive and deserve universal condemnation. It was an unjustifiable attack and will make no difference whatever to the search for peace in Northern Ireland. But I believe that it should lead to every part of this House uniting on firm action against terrorism.

    Mr. John Smith : With the issue of Ministers telling the truth now a matter of public debate, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what most undermines the credibility of his Administration is the blatant deception practised at the last election when the Conservative party promised to cut taxes? Since then, they have imposed the largest tax increase in Britain’s peacetime history.

    The Prime Minister : I shall turn directly to that point, but I must say that I am extremely surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pursue that matter on the day after a mortar attack at Heathrow and on the very day on which the Cabinet has been considering sending more troops to Bosnia to deal with an international problem. [Interruption.] I have made the point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that these things do not matter. I think that people throughout the country will take a different view. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    The Prime Minister : On the specific point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taxation rose precisely because we kept our promises to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick through the long recession. The recession lasted longer than we or other forecasters had imagined, and in order to sustain policy and bring down interest rates it was necessary to close borrowing. That was a responsible attitude. It was the right attitude. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood the first thing about economics, he would support it, not attack it.

    Mr. John Smith : To come very directly to the point, does the Prime Minister deny that before the election he promised to cut taxes and he is now putting them up?

    The Prime Minister : I have made it perfectly clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it was necessary to raise taxation, although we had hoped not to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to consider taxes, he might look at the more recent figures of council taxes which show clearly how much more expensive Labour authorities and Liberal authorities are than Conservative authorities. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would comment on that.

    Mr. John Smith : Having regard to the Prime Minister’s feeble excuse for breaking his promise at the election, does he not remember telling the Los Angeles Times in his celebrated interview last year :

    “I said [to colleagues] the day after we won the election . . . Within the next 12 months the government will be the most unpopular we have seen for a long time.’”

    He went on to say, “I was staggeringly prescient.” Will the Prime Minister explain how he could know about the state of the economy the day after the election but not know before polling day?

    The Prime Minister : I shall go back further than that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I made it absolutely clear on the day that I became Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would take whatever action was necessary to restrain inflation and put the economy on secure and steady growth. We have done that, including maintaining monetary policy with interest rates at a high level right through the election, because it was in the interests of the British economy to do so. That is responsible government. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : With the council elections approaching, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that what council tax payers want are efficient services at the lowest possible cost? Does he agree that it is the Conservative councils who deliver this, not the Labour councils and not the Liberal councils, such as the one that I have in Surrey?

    The Prime Minister : I not only agree with my hon. Friend ; it is what the statistics now becoming available on council tax charges show. At present, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced yesterday, Conservative councils that have now declared their council taxes come out, on average, at £129 less than Labour councils and £73 less than Liberal councils. It is clear who costs one more in the shires–it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in the mets–it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in London–it is Labour. No matter where one looks, Labour councils and–so as not to disappoint the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)–Liberal councils, cost one more.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Is the Prime Minister aware that his recent morale-boosting visit to Scotland has resulted in his party achieving a record low in the polls of 13 per cent? Does he appreciate why the Scots are once more uttering the refrain :

    “Will ye no’ come back again”

    and again, and again?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is typically inaccurate. The data were before I visited Scotland.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q5. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Imperial War museum at Duxford.

    The Prime Minister : I know from private visits what a magnificent place the Duxford museum is. I can well understand the pride of my right hon. Friend in having it in his constituency. I hope that I may be able to pay an official visit at some time in the future.

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend note that the United States air force flew from Duxford during the last war with much loss of life and, in particular, flew on the D-day operation? Will he give his support to the American air museum being created there, either by visiting Duxford or by inviting the Americans concerned to visit him? It would be extremely good for Anglo-American relations.

    The Prime Minister : I should like to visit Duxford again. I shall take an opportunity to do so and to look at the museum’s plans. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the significant contribution of the US air force to the D-day landings. We have a continual debt of gratitude to them. It is right that we should celebrate the 50th anniversary and remember the heroism of the troops and the sacrifices that they made so that we can enjoy the liberties that we exercise in the House.

     

    Health Issues

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devotes to health issues.

    The Prime Minister : A lot.

    Mr. Hughes : In that case, given that one of the most obvious implications of the Government’s policies for health services in London is that they plan to run down the hospital that the Prime Minister described as the flagship, and that the main building–a state of the art building costing £140 million–will never come into use, in all seriousness will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take a little extra time to listen to a proposal that keeps both Guy’s and St. Thomas’s as hospitals, saves the taxpayer money, reduces embarrassment and, above all, saves patients’ lives?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes to the health service in London are long overdue; they have been long sought by many people. We have won support inside and outside the health service for tackling that particular problem, not least from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As for the problems of Guy’s and St. Thomas’s, the hon. Gentleman will know that the clinicians at both hospitals believe that patient care will be improved by concentrating services on one site, not two. It is not just the Government’s view, but that of the doctors involved. Thanks to the determination to embrace change, the Guy’s and St Thomas’s trust will have a secure future and its buildings, old and new, will be used fully, effectively and appropriately in the best interests of patients, medical teaching and research.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Sumberg : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the country about the activities of television cable-laying companies? Pavements are uprooted, roads closed and businesses disrupted all with the objective of getting doubtful television programmes into our homes. Is it not time that we found a better way of organising these matters?

    The Prime Minister : I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend. Of course it is important that all those with the right to undertake street works should keep disruption to a minimum. He will know that there are duties to do so written into the terms of the licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend will also know that in those areas where cables are laid, about one quarter of all homes subsequently decide to participate in cable television. That has led to investment across the United Kingdom of well over £1 billion.

     

    Q8. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time today to check on a transcript of the “Today” programme earlier this week, when his right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that he would not be Prime Minister after November, or after the autumn ? If that is the case, will he make sure that his right hon. and learned Friend is incorrect, as he is such a good asset to us in the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall cheap questions like that before the previous election. I am still here and the Opposition are still there.

     

    Q9. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), does my right hon. Friend agree that the IRA-Sinn Fein must now be treated with complete contempt? Does he further agree that unless it signs the declaration tomorrow, it should forfeit its opportunity to be part of it?

    The Prime Minister : I think that every hon. Member of the House will have nothing but contempt for the IRA’s behaviour. With the attacks that it has made, both in Northern Ireland and at Heathrow yesterday, it has demonstrated again its disregard for human life and for opinion on both sides of the community. I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the long-term purpose and import of the declaration that I signed with the Taoiseach in December. It sets out a series of principles on which we hope and intend to try to build a permanent peace for Northern Ireland.

  • 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 – 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 – 30 November 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mark Robinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 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. Robinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that contacts have played an initial part in bringing about the process in the middle east and in bringing people together in South Africa ; but contacts have always played an important part in bringing an end to violence ? Hon. Members want my right hon. Friend to continue his courageous search to bring an end to bloodshed in Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend and I welcome the strong support yesterday given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the efforts to promote peace and political settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that contacts can play a useful part, for the reasons set out yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that those contacts will have helped the IRA to understand that violence must stop before those who justify it can enter negotiations with the Government, and that the Government stand firmly by their public position.

    I regret very much that there has not yet been a permanent cessation of violence, as events in Northern Ireland over the past day have sadly demonstrated yet again. But if our present efforts do not succeed, we will not cease to explore opportunities for peace.

    Mr. John Smith : As a former Chief Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as Prime Minister for the past three years, does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the £50 billion Budget deficit ?

    The Prime Minister : During the recession [Hon. Members : “Answer”] I shall answer in my own way. During the recession, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues were keen to see us increase spending to protect people who are vulnerable. It was the protection of people who were vulnerable and the collapse of income during that period that increased the size of the borrowing requirement. What is presently odious about the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that his party objects now to spending reductions, having previously asked for spending increases. They complain about the size of the borrowing requirement, they complain about tax increases and they still promise extra expenditure.

    Mr. John Smith : I will not bandy cheap insults with the Prime Minister. The House will notice that he did not answer the question as to responsibility. If he seeks to blame it all on the world recession, can he explain why Britain’s Budget deficit is significantly worse than that of Japan, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why our inflation position is better than that of all those countries, why our unemployment position is better, why our exports position is better, why we have unemployment falling and they have unemployment growing, and why we have the largest growth rate in the European Community this year and projected next year. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reflect on that.

    Mr. John Smith : Perhaps the Prime Minister will reflect on why, if everything in the garden is growing as well as he suggests, we have a £50 billion deficit? Is not economic mismanagement the fundamental reason for that ? And is not that the fundamental reason why, quite apart from anything the Chancellor does today, the British taxpayer faces a major tax hike next April?

    The Prime Minister : I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s third question in my first answer. If he cares to look at it again, he will see that that is the case. Once again, he is trying to face both ways at the same time and attacks us both on the level of the deficit and the level of taxation. If he thinks that taxes are too high and the deficit is also too high, what spending would he cut? He cannot go on living in an Alice in Wonderland world where taxes fall, the deficit drops and spending rises effortlessly upwards. Whenever the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks, the natural laws of economics are suspended.

     

    Q2. Mr. Stephen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Stephen : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most significant result of the survey of manufacturing industry published yesterday is that our consumer-led recovery is providing a significant and sustained boost to manufacturing industry right across the country?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Consumer demand is rising, manufacturing output is growing, retail sales are at record levels, exports are up, and car registrations are up, which is all good news for British manufacturing. Opposition Members who continually knock the record of British manufacturing should ask themselves how, if it is not doing well, British exports have risen so dramatically. We were certainly the first to go into recession, but we are also the first to be clearly out of recession and we are set to grow faster this year than almost any other European nation.

    Mr. Ashdown : Should not those who hope for peace and wish the Prime Minister well in his pursuit of it in Northern Ireland nevertheless recognise that the events of the weekend, for whatever reason, have served to dent the trust of the Unionists, put the extremists centre stage and check the momentum of peace in Northern Ireland ? Does the Prime Minister recognise the absolute urgency now of taking action to restore the momentum for peace by proposing, after discussion with the Irish Prime Minister, actions that will unite the majority on both sides?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, who made his own comments about the leaks over the weekend, might have been prudent to wait to hear what the Government had to say before he made those comments and to study the documents which the Government released to justify the position that they have taken, as those documents clearly do. I believe that when people in Northern Ireland have had a chance to study what was said, they will see that the Government have acted properly and done their duty throughout this whole affair. If there had been a terrorist tragedy of some sort on a massive scale this week and it then became apparent that we had ignored the message that we received earlier this year, that would have been unforgivable, and I dread to think what the right hon. Gentleman would have said in those circumstances.

     

    Q4. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Bearing in mind that there is strong and firm support for the Home Secretary’s recent proposals on law and order, particularly with regard to people on bail and remand reforms which have been urged on the Government over a period of years by the Norwich crime prevention panel will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will encourage business leaders and local councils in Norwich to support the panel’s campaign to install security cameras in the city centre, leading to the deterrence of crime and more convictions, as sure as night follows day?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is determined to make Norwich as famous as Basildon, and I suspect that he may succeed. I agree with him about closed circuit television and reject outright the views of those people who claim that it is in some way Big Brother. The public rightly want less crime, and closed circuit television has an important part to play in achieving that. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is strong support in the House and beyond for the anti-crime measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that they will have the support of hon. Members across the House when they come before the House for consideration.

     

    Q5. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Trimble : May I refer the Prime Minister to the channel of communication with the IRA that was revealed yesterday? Is the Prime Minister satisfied about the reliability and accuracy of that channel in view of the denials now issuing from Belfast about the February statement to which the Prime Minister referred earlier? Was the dialogue with the IRA in any way prompted by events in England? Were any messages sent on that channel of communication by or on behalf of any Minister other than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Were they in any way related to recent events in England?

    The Prime Minister : For the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend set out yesterday, it is useful to continue to have a confidential channel of communication which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and his hon. Friends said yesterday, has been available for many years. Any private communications on our part will, on all occasions, be consistent with the Government’s public position, as was the case with the documents published yesterday. On the reliability of the channel, experience has proved it to be extremely accurate and extremely reliable over many years. But the real test over time is action not words. We need to see what the final outcome is. The documents published yesterday set out a full record of the exchanges and I have no further exchanges to report to the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last month, not only was there a decrease in unemployment in my constituency of 7 per cent., but Brintons Carpets, my constituency’s largest employer, has just announced a year-on-year increase in exports of 86 per cent? Is not that indicative of the huge improvement in competitiveness in British industry, and would not that improvement be severely damaged by the social chapter, the minimum wage and the European super-state, with which the Labour party increasingly seems to be obsessed?

    The Prime Minister : I am pleased to hear the good news from my hon. Friend’s constituency, and to hear that unemployment is falling there, as it is now in all parts of the country. It is true that while I have no doubt that the Opposition wish to create jobs, their policies would, in practice, destroy jobs. A minimum wage would destroy jobs, a 35-hour week would destroy jobs and levelling up business taxes would destroy jobs. People will notice that unemployment is falling here with our policies, but rising in other countries that follow the policies advocated by the Opposition.

    Mr. Grocott : Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in the three years that he has been in the job, 1,300,000 people have lost their jobs, 250,000 people have lost their homes and 150,000 businesses have gone bankrupt? As he continues to draw a full salary, can we assume that, whatever else is in the Chancellor’s Budget, there will be no reference to performance-related pay?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm a lot to the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that when I became Prime Minister inflation was 9.7 per cent. and is now at 1.4 per cent., interest rates were 14 per cent. and are now 5.5 per cent., unemployment was rising and is now falling, the economy has been in recession and is now growing, and 137,000 people have come off the unemployment register total this year. I can also confirm that last month alone nearly 500,000 people came off the register. The hon. Gentleman can name no other country in the western world currently in that position.

     

    Q7. Mr. Sims : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Sims : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in all parts of the House about too-easy access to pornography produced on computers? Does he join me in welcoming the announcement last week by the Home Secretary of measures to curb these activities, which can be so harmful, especially to children?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and I strongly share it. Parents feel particularly revolted by pornography involving children. The measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced will be included in the criminal justice Bill in this Session. They will make it quite clear to the pornographers that we are determined to defeat them, and we intend to crack down especially hard on the appalling trade in child pornography.