The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

  • PMQT – 4 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Canavan: In view of renewed speculation that the Thatcher dynasty might emulate the Churchill dynasty by winning the lottery jackpot, will the Prime Minister set an example by ensuring free access to all his prime ministerial papers before they, along with him, are very soon consigned to the dustbin of history?

    The Prime Minister: I agreed in 1991 that I shall remove from my office, in due course, only papers of a truly personal nature and no official material, other than that which, like speeches, is already in the public domain. I hope that my successors will follow that convention.

     

    Q2. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit yesterday to meet the victims of the IRA’s continued brutality will be widely welcomed? Does he agree that Sinn Fein’s protestations to be a democratic, political party ring hollow while it continues to orchestrate and to defend vicious attacks on the police and civilians?

    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein’s mask slipped yesterday and it reminded us vividly of its character. As a result, I shall consider over the weekend whether the exploratory dialogue can go ahead. I shall probably decide that it should do so, because I wish Sinn Fein to become a fully democratic and peaceful party, playing a full part in negotiations with other parties. The purpose of the exploratory dialogue is to help to bring that about. As we have come this far, the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland should not be abandoned without holding Sinn Fein’s feet to the fire in face-to-face negotiations.

    Mr. Blair: May I say that I associate myself entirely with those remarks?

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conducted a review over many months into the taxation of insurance payments and had removed any uncertainty. Today, the Chancellor has popped up and announced a new and different review into part of the same problem. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about that other review on Tuesday?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is slightly confused and is again seeking to spread a little despondency. I shall try to explain it for him carefully, so that he is able to remove any misunderstanding.

    There is no new intention to levy taxes on the payments from certain insurance policies. The question that has been asked by the insurance companies is whether those payments are already taxable under existing tax laws, which date back to the last century. The insurance industry has asked the Inland Revenue to give its opinions about that.

    The Inland Revenue receives similar questions from the insurance industry and other industries routinely, week after week. When the Inland Revenue has concluded its consideration of that issue, it will report to Ministers- -not, of course, before it is ready to do so. When we have its opinion, we can consider whether the law needs changing. Before the right hon. Gentleman spreads any more misunderstandings, let me say to him that there is no record of any tax ever having been deducted from those insurance payments and, until the matter is settled for those policies under review, the Inland Revenue will not expect tax to be deducted.

    So that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of leaving out any information, let me say to the House that there is one real threat to people with private insurance. Let me quote:

    “We can close tax reliefs that are unfair, like reforming those for . . . private medical insurance”–

    the words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why he did not mention that review on Tuesday. How does what he has just said square with the fact that yesterday the Inland Revenue said that insurance payments other than those relating to mortgages were to be taxed and never mentioned any review, and why did the Chancellor say on Tuesday that it was a simple problem, that he had sorted it out in 10 minutes and that he had not even heard of the first review, never mind the second one?

    This has been not a review but a pre-election panic attack, and it bears all the hallmarks of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government–it begins in incompetence, falls into confusion and ends in chaos.

    The Prime Minister: We were carefully weaved round to the preordained soundbite again. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that he is not nearly as silly as he sought to make out in what he just said.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that such routine inquiries are made of the Inland Revenue by industry and industry spokesmen all the time. They are answered by the Inland Revenue. There are huge numbers of them. They are not all referred to Ministers. Sometimes, when they are made public, the right hon. Gentleman tries to make a great scandal about them.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows well that there is nothing in this today and there was nothing in it on Tuesday. All he is about is the usual Labour party scaremongering for cheap political gain.

    Sir Giles Shaw: May I return my right hon. Friend to more relevant matters? I add my congratulations to many on the skill and courage that he showed in persisting with his programme in Londonderry yesterday.

    In relation to the magnanimous gesture that my right hon. Friend has just made in respect of discussions and preliminary talks, will he please ensure that any discussions or talks are not conducted under any form of duress and that, when such talks start, item one on day one in the first hour will be that of somehow getting rid of arms, which continue to overshadow the prospects of Northern Ireland with the threat of violence?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right that there can be no suggestion of discussing those matters with Sinn Fein in the exploratory talks under duress.

    Let me also say to my hon. Friend that I have no illusions about the nature of Sinn Fein or its spokesmen. The behaviour of a few hundred of its supporters yesterday showed how far it has yet to go before it becomes a democratic party, as the rest of us in the House understand the meaning of the term, “democratic party”.

    In two hours yesterday, those supporters destroyed the image that Sinn Fein has sought to build up in recent months, and the event reminds us of the nature of the people with whom we are dealing. We want to push them towards democracy. We know that it will be a tough job, but we will continue to try because it is in the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we should do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he misled the House on 25 April when he said, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the information that there were two bureaucratic staff for every three teachers was in “Social Trends”? It is not; it is in the Annual Abstract of Statistics , which goes on to say that the so-called bureaucratic staff are cleaners, catering staff and nursery assistants. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House that?

    The Prime Minister: The source of the figures is even more appropriate than the hon. Gentleman suggests: the Local Government Management Board collected them.

    What I said to the House was wrong in one respect. I said that local education authorities employed two non-teaching members of staff to every three teachers. In fact, it is not two against three but two and a half against three.

    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Having studied the report of yesterday’s debates–as I am sure he has–my right hon. Friend will have been reminded of the magnificent performance of our exporters, especially our industrial exporters. Does he agree that a number of Government policies have contributed to that success, not least privatisation, the reform of industrial relations, a sensible taxation system and inward investment, and that all those developments are threatened by the Labour party’s policies?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the remarkable performance of British exporters, including industrial exporters and exporters of services. They would undoubtedly be put at risk by many of the policies proposed by Labour, and the extra costs that those policies would impose on employers. Exports have successively reached a new record in about nine of the past 12 or 13 months. I cannot recall an occasion when that has happened before.

    I should have thought that, instead of carping, Labour Members might for once give some credit to British industry and British exporters.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern and even fear among disabled people about the Government’s proposed new tests for incapacity benefit? Does he accept that that concern is genuine, and will he dissociate himself from the disgraceful comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who attempted to brand all those people fraudsters?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He has taken a great deal of action to help disabled people, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We are as concerned about disabled people’s security of mind, and the provision of services for them, as any other party in the country. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons and is currently passing through the House of Lords, will be the biggest single advance for disabled people that we have seen in this country for many years.

    As for the new incapacity benefit, I hope that–as the Labour party sometimes claims also to be concerned about the size of the social security bill–the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be indefensible to continue to pay incapacity benefits to people who are not genuinely incapable of work. Either the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends agree with that, or they do not. If they do, they have no cause to criticise the Government; if they do not, they had better stop giving us lectures about public expenditure, and admit to the increased taxation that they would have to impose.

    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that air service agreements between the United States and the United Kingdom are a matter for the United States Government and his Government and are nothing whatever to do with the European Commission?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that point and we have made our views entirely clear in that regard.

     

    Q5. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister accept that desperately ill people and their families feel agony and anguish when they cannot gain immediate admission to local hospitals? My constituent, Lilian May Wilkinson, alas, died as a result of that situation. Does the Prime Minister understand that that is one of the many reasons why today people in the city of Leicester are pouring out to obliterate the Tories from our city?

    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted a detailed reply to the difficulties that have caused the tragedy to which he referred he might have given some prior notice of the case before using it in that fashion. He knows that the overwhelming majority of people get a better service from those who work in the health service than they would find anywhere else in the world. Errors do take place in a service that size. People are human; even those who work in the health service can make mistakes.

    However, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done better to remind people that once every 16 seconds an ambulance makes an emergency call, that once every nine seconds a surgeon performs a national health service operation, that every tenth of a second someone somewhere visits his or her general practitioner and that 8 million people are treated each year. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman choose one issue, of which he gave no notice, in order to try to make that sort of political point?

    Mr. Trimble: I assure the Prime Minister that there is one party in this place which will not allow itself to be subjected to duress. I refer again to yesterday’s incident which marred the Prime Minister’s visit to Londonderry. Does he realise that the incident was not unprecedented? While it was of a slightly greater intensity than others, that sort of street demonstration has occurred regularly in the past few months and it is part of an IRA-Sinn Fein campaign to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary–a campaign which is assisted by other elements, some of whom are within the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have protected society from terrorism for the past 25 years have his wholehearted support and that there is no question of disbanding or restructuring the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear in the speech that I gave yesterday in Northern Ireland my admiration for the work that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, not just yesterday–when I think that its members performed superbly–but over the past 25 years in seeing the people of Northern Ireland through a most difficult period in their history. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very proud record and I am happy to endorse it for the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

    I said earlier that I have no illusions about the people with whom we are dealing. I say again that peaceful democratic parties do not act in the way that Sinn Fein supporters acted yesterday. They do not act as front organisations for heavily armed paramilitaries; they do not intimidate and threaten the population; they do not break the legs of teenagers with baseball bats, as they have been doing; and they do not behave in many other thuggish ways. Of course I welcome the end of killing in Northern Ireland. However, as I said clearly yesterday and will say again and again, much of the brutal behaviour by paramilitaries must be stopped before they can begin to claim that they are democratic parties.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland Visit – 3 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his visit to Northern Ireland, made on 3rd May 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about his visit to Northern Ireland]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I look forward to meeting Families Against Intimidation and church leaders, trade union leaders. I hope to speak at the CBI at lunchtime and I have a series of other engagements. The principal reason I’m here is that I don’t think you can keep wholly up to date with what’s happening here in Northern Ireland without coming here regularly and I want to take the opportunity of coming here, listen to what people have to say, talk to them about some of the problems that we have faced, some of the opportunities that lie ahead and form my own judgements about how we proceed. So that is the principal purpose of me being here.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his comments on Ian Paisley’s suggestion that the Prime Minister’s visit was a publicity stunt]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These things are arranged a long time ago. Ian says all sorts of strange things from time to time. I have been coming back to Northern Ireland on a regular basis. I set out for you a few moments ago why I’m here. I’m here to talk to people; I’m here to listen to people. If I were concerned in stunts like that, no doubt I would be somewhere out in the midst of the local government elections visiting somewhere there. I’m here because I’m keen to see this peace process move forward.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Wellington Park – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep at Wellington Park on 3rd May 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Did you give the trade unions any reassurance on the Document?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we have been talking about – I think there are two aspects – that is one of them, that is part of it. First, I would just like to express publicly what I have said privately and that is to thank the trade unions in Northern Ireland for the work that they have done against sectarianism, originally anti-sectarianism, now non-sectarianism. I think they have played a remarkable role in the workshop to try and remove those discriminations. I was pleased to congratulate them on that this morning and encourage them to continue with their counteract programme, as I’m sure they will. What we spent most of our time discussing this morning was economic matters in their generality, including employment prospects. At the moment unemployment is falling more rapidly in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in Europe and it is falling more rapidly in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, more rapidly here therefore than anywhere else in Europe, and more people are getting into work. Now that will continue provided we are able to continue with the investment and continue with the changed and more confident aspect that exist in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire. Providing that is maintained, providing that is built upon, providing we can carry that process to a conclusion, then I think the economic future for Northern Ireland is infinitely brighter than Northern Ireland has seen at any stage in its history, so there is a very great prize for Northern Ireland, and I’m very keen to ensure that we carry the process forward: firstly, for self-evident political reasons, but secondly, because the economic changes it will make to all the people in Northern Ireland today and in the future will be very remarkable. We’re on our way but there’s a long way still to go.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Hillsborough Castle – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s statement at Hillsborough Castle on Wednesday 3rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good morning.

    Let me just say a brief word or two about the meetings I have had thus far this morning. I had a meeting over breakfast with the Church Leaders. This is one of a whole series of meetings I have had over the last couple of years and I can assure you that there will be more meetings of the same sort in the future. The purpose of this was to brief the Church Leaders on where we are at the moment with the process in Northern Ireland, to seek their views on what the community are saying and to discuss a range of matters relevant to Northern Ireland.

    Much of that discussion was private but I can simply say this morning that I value very much the contribution the Church Leaders have made. It has in my judgement been significant in keeping this process moving forward and I intend to maintain very close relationships with them in the future.

    As you will know I also met the Families Against Intimidation in Northern Ireland and I must say that when one sees a way from the abstract the specific problems and details that are faced by many people in Northern Ireland, it does make the problems that still exist even after the end of killing very vivid indeed. Everyone I think is delighted that for the time we have a ceasefire and people are not being killed by paramilitary groups. That is undoubtedly a great step forward. But because that step has been made it does not excuse the other criminality that still continues to be carried out by the paramilitary groups. And I would just like to make that entirely clear.

    People have begun to refer to the term ‘punishment beatings’. The first point I’d care to make about that is that punishment is not for anyone to inflict other than the legal Government of the day. It is not for paramilitary groups. And if one looks at the examples of what they are doing – young men taken out of their homes, their legs broken with baseball bats, held down and beaten, people’s homes broken into, wrecked as an example, people with their legs spiked with railings. Those are just some of the illustrations many of you will be familiar with.

    I think people need to realise that that is still being done by the paramilitary groups and that it is wholly and utterly unacceptable for any group that wishes to enter democratic life to behave in this fashion. It is not for the paramilitary groups to exclude people from any part of Northern Ireland. So let me make it beyond a doubt clear to anybody. These are acts of straightforward criminality. Whenever they occur I hope that anyone that has any evidence of any of these acts will bring that evidence forward to the police so that the police can act, secure a prosecution and secure a punishment. People in Northern Ireland must not be subjected to that sort of behaviour by the paramilitary groups and if they are to talk about peace, if they are to talk about entering the democratic system, then they are going to have to behave as democrats and that doesn’t just mean that people aren’t killed, it means that people aren’t beaten up, that their homes aren’t wrecked and that people aren’t excluded from the areas in which they live by those paramilitary groups.

    INTERVIEWER:

    There are concerns that the peace process is if not on a ‘twin track’ basis on a single track basis and that Sinn Fein are very far behind the other parties. What is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The peace process is on a single track basis. Our objective is to try and get Sinn Fein in the same position where they can join political talks with everybody else. But to do that they need to be at the same position as everybody else. That is the position we have taken right from the start and it remains the position. The purpose of the exploratory talks with Michael Ancram is to move forward so that Sinn Fein are on the same position as other people, they meet the same criteria as the other political groups and then they can enter the other political talks. That is the purpose of them.

    QUESTION (Ken Reid):

    When Michael Ancram talks to Sinn Fein next week you have said decommissioning of arms is top of the agenda. Do you actually mean the surrender of guns?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decommissioning of arms is perfectly clear. If people are prepared to enter into the democratic process then they don’t need arms. If they need arms then there must be a question about how serious they are about entering into the democratic process. Now we need to examine this matter. It isn’t a matter of semantics, it isn’t a matter of detail, it is a matter of principle and it is a matter of practice. The reality is that if Sinn Fein are to move forward as I wish to see them do, and enter fully into the democratic process as I wish them to do, and to enter into the talks with the other political parties as I hope they will do, then they are going to have to put themselves in a position where the other political parties will sit down and talk to them. And the other political parties will require them to acknowledge that guns have to come out of politics, to agree the polities of how guns will be coming out of politics and to make some progress in that effect. The Secretary of State has set that out clearly before. It isn’t a hurdle, it is something that must be done if the other political parties would be prepared to talk to Sinn Fein and if people can then see the sincerity of their wish to enter into the democratic process. Let there be absolutely no doubt I wish that progress to be made. The sooner we can justifiably move Sinn Fein forward into the talks process with the other political parties I will be delighted when we reach that day. It will be a great move forward. But there is no point in trying to move them to that position when the other parties will not talk to them because they have not met the same democratic criteria as the other parties. And that is a substantive point.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Belfast – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech in Belfast on Wednesday 3rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much for that introduction. I look forward in a few minutes to hearing what you have to say about tax, and no doubt roads, and no doubt a whole range of other matters. And may I say what a delight it will be to discuss the same sort of economic matters in Northern Ireland that I would discuss in every other part of the United Kingdom as well, and the sooner I can come here and discuss just that, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and the better it will be for everyone else.

    But we have not quite reached that happy state yet and what I want to do this morning is to talk for a while about where we are on the road towards a durable peace. A great deal of attention, especially outside Northern Ireland, has been focused on a rather narrow definition of the peace process on the exploratory talks with Sinn Fein and with the Loyalist Paramilitaries. Of course they are important, but progress in Northern Ireland runs much wider and much more deeply than that, its seeds were sown long ago and people in all walks of life are contributing. You and your fellow businessmen are contributing. Those who have long worked for fair employment and against sectarianism are discrimination are contributing. The churches, the community workers, groups fighting courageously against intimidation and violence. And the police, not just in protecting the population with the army’s help, but extending crime prevention and community policing. And of course those democratic politicians who, throughout the troubles, have stood against violence and exclusively for constitutional methods.

    That common determination to move forward is, I believe, the surest guarantee that Northern Ireland will have a better future. Our task, everyone’s task, is now to create a rolling tide for peace that no-one can withstand. I want to see the people of Northern Ireland confident in themselves, confident in their economy and confident that the political system can produce a lasting agreement. And I think the signs of progress are beginning to show. Unemployment here is now at its lowest point for 13 years. Employment, the number of people in jobs, is at an all time high. Tourism is growing dramatically, there will be 20 percent more visitors this year spending an extra 200 million pounds, and there are going to be new hotels to house them.

    And since the Belfast Investment Conference there have already been 20 possible new investment projects. In the last week Seagate have announced a large expansion creating 300 jobs in Londonderry; Dairy Young [phoentic] is bringing 500 jobs to a new investment in Craigavon; and Mivan [phoentic] of Antrim have announced double profits. I hope we are going to hear further success stories at the Washington Investment Conference later on this month.

    So I believe that your growth challenge, an important initiative is an initiative that is catching that rolling tide for peace that I referred to. It comes at a time when Northern Ireland exports are growing even faster than those of the United Kingdom as a whole, and the United Kingdom as a whole is leading the field in exports across the whole of the European Union.

    Peace is boosting business confidence, just as growing prosperity itself reinforces peace. So I think the moment is right for business, in partnership with government, to accelerate growth. And we need to make sure that this peace I speak of extends right across the community, that it meets the challenges of a new situation. This morning I had the opportunity of discussing some of those challenges with church leaders, with trade union leaders, and with representatives of Families Against Intimidation and Terrorism. And later on this afternoon I will be seeing how the RUC are responding to the challenges that they face.

    And one challenge of course is to deal with paramilitary criminality, with extortion rackets, with intimidation and with a vicious phenomenon of what are called punishment beatings. Since the ceasefire there has been an unwelcome increase in vicious paramilitary assaults, the mis-named punishment beatings. I met, as I said a moment ago, Families Against Intimidation and Terror this morning and they told me that they had counted 97 assaults since 1 September, at least one of which led to a young man’s death, a young man not yet 17 who killed himself as a result of what are euphemistically called punishment beatings.

    They told me of other things as well. Another 16 year old boy whose legs were smashed on both sides with iron bars for 10 minutes while he lay on the ground with a paramilitary foot on his body, holding him in place while he was beaten. The family is forced out of Northern Ireland for speaking out against terrorism. And I met a mother who, like other grieving relatives here, cannot be at peace in her mind because the paramilitaries murdered her son 17 years ago and they have still not told here where that body lies so that she can give her son a decent Christian burial.

    That is not politics. That is barbaric criminality. And everyone in the community should help the police and the courts to combat it, and no-one who aspires to democratic politics in any way should defend or in any way tolerate such unspeakable activities. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, whenever they have any knowledge of any incident like that, any group that seeks to exclude someone from part of Northern Ireland, that takes upon itself punishment of some sort that they have no proper legal authority to take upon themselves, I hope anyone with any information of that sort will have the courage to take that information to the police so it can be properly dealt with, properly investigated, the perpetrators arrested, tried and if found guilty suitably punished properly in accordance with law.

    It is a difficult job, policing in Northern Ireland. I have a great admiration for what the RUC have achieved. They are already responding to the challenge of civilian policing throughout all of the community. But it does need the help of the community, not wilful obstruction of the crime prevention campaigns or intimidation of new recruits, the whole community needs to be involved to help develop policing for a Northern Ireland at peace and to break down decades of suspicion and distrust.

    Over the years the RUC has withstood the most intense assault and it has made many sacrifices in the cause of impartiality, courage and professionalism. As it is increasingly freed from the threat of terrorism, I believe it can serve the whole community as never before. The men and women of the RUC have seen Northern Ireland through the past 25 years, they have defended democracy, they have defended the rule of law, they deserve our support and they will get it and we will stand by them.

    Let me mention also the trade union leaders whom I met this morning and who play an important part in your lives as businessmen. They too have played a remarkable role often where passions burn most strongly in bringing all sides together. They have helped rid shop floors of destructive sectarianism, they have shown that people in Northern Ireland can and do work together in the workplace to the benefit of everyone and Northern Ireland as a whole. And for doing so they deserve their share of the credit for Northern Ireland’s success.

    Let me now for a few moments just turn to the political process. Paddy Mayhew and his colleagues will shortly begin a further round of talks with the parties. Those talks have one overriding objective – to move towards agreement on the widest possible basis on a stable and harmonious future for Northern Ireland. Such an agreement has always eluded us, it will not come quickly or easily now. But without question, we have a better chance of achieving it than we have ever had before.

    In the two framework documents we identified the issues that need to be addressed. There has been a wide debate about those issues, different views have been expressed, sometimes with more passion than accuracy. Hard questions have been asked. We now want to have a constructive discussion with the political parties on the way forward, about the issues in the two documents and about their own ideas as well on a political settlement. And encouragingly some meetings have already taken place between the political parties themselves.

    Mr Vice-Chairman, I am in doubt that with your support and with the support of the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland which seeks a stable and just future, there is a basis for a lasting settlement, a settlement which the parties can honourably agree and the people will be prepared to support in a referendum. This is a process with a single track. Sinn Fein, through their own actions, have left themselves further back than others, but they can advance down that track and we wish to see them do so. We want all parties in Northern Ireland to be full participants in a democratic, political and exclusively peaceful process.

    And that is one of the main purposes of the exploratory dialogue with the Loyalists and Sinn Fein. When Michael Ancram joins the dialogue with Sinn Fein next week it will be an historic moment. It will also be an historic opportunity because we want to explore how Sinn Fein and the Provisionals can best demonstrate their exclusive commitment to peaceful methods by putting away violence and by putting away the instruments of violence. They know what is required of them. We and the Irish government spelt this out in the Downing Street declaration and have done so on many subsequent occasions. There will be no tricks and no traps, just the opportunity offered by the Downing Street declaration to Sinn Fein to join in the political process on the same basis as other parties with a democratic mandate, the basis of exclusively peaceful methods and a commitment to abide by the democratic process, the basis of a level playing field on which no-one threatens violence or intimidation.

    When we began many people did not see the Downing Street declaration a a realistic basis for a ceasefire. They were wrong. Some now argue that it is not realistic to expect the paramilitaries to dispense with their arsenals. They too are wrong. It is neither realistic, nor acceptable, as we come to the end of the 20th century, for parties in our democracy to front private armies. And this is why I have said, and the Taoiseach has said, and President Clinton has said the decommissioning of arms is so important. And that is why we and the Irish government have worked on a joint plan for decommissioning.

    I can put it no better than the recent Irish Times editorial which said, and I quote: “Sinn Fein can be under no illusion that the question of IRA arms must be resolved before it can be an equal partner in political talks”. That is the end of the quote. To sit at the same table, Sinn Fein must gain the confidence of the other parties, by making a commitment to progressive disarmament and by beginning a verifiable process of decommissioning.

    Over the months the government and the security forces have responded in innumerable and imaginative ways to the new opportunities of the ceasefire. The people of Northern Ireland have responded themselves to those opportunities. It is now time for the paramilitary organisations and their political representatives to pay heed to what the people of Northern Ireland are seeking and are saying and to respond to that.

    I have no doubt that it is realistic to expect them to take these essential steps and we shall help them to do so in every way that we can. I spoke earlier of confidence. In the Downing Street declaration we offered a fair deal for everyone who embraced peace, and you can be confident, and they can be confident, that we shall stand by that pledge.

    You yourselves are helping-to generate confidence through your growth initiative. Every week, every month, has helped to build more confidence in that rolling peace process. The tide is carrying Northern Ireland away from violence and towards an enduring peace. With growing and visible economic success, an unshakeable political resolution, a much better future for Northern Ireland is at hand.

    There is a new atmosphere out there in Northern Ireland, a willingness to think afresh. People here, people I have spoken to today, people who have suffered terribly from violence over the years, they want to take down barriers and make peace irreversible, to make the price for going back to violence unbearable for those people who might seek to go back to violence.

    After 8 months of ceasefire people can see no cause, no reason and no sense in the illegal arsenals which still impede progress. Neither can I. An opportunity to remove them, an opportunity to come fully into the democratic process is there, it is there for everyone with courage and vision to take that opportunity.

    I believe that the time has come to put those weapons aside forever and to invest only in peace. That is the chance that is at hand, that is the chance that I hope everyone will take.

    We for our part will do our best to bring those talks satisfactorily and honourably to a conclusion that will lead to a permanent peace in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is there. If we have to be patient, we will be patient. If we have to be bold, we will be bold. But we see that chance of peace and we don’t wish to see it lost. My hope is that everybody will see that peace and that chance in precisely the same way and we may be able to carry it through to fruition.

    I come back frequently to Northern Ireland. Every time I return I am refreshed in my view of the opportunities that exist here. I know in listening to what you have to say in a few minutes I shall find that view reaffirmed yet again and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to express it this morning.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 4 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Tuesday 4th April 1995.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Good afternoon. Please be seated. I am delighted to welcome Prime Minister Major back to the White House. Throughout this century the United States and the United Kingdom have stood together on the great issues that have confronted our people. Our common cause has been at the heart of our success in two World Wars and of course in the Cold War. In just the last two years British/American cooperation has played an essential role in allowing us to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, in promoting peace around the world and certainly in expanding free trade.

    Today we have continued working in that tradition. We have had excellent discussions, we have covered a broad range of issues, we have, as always, found much to agree about.

    On security issues we agree that the inevitable process of NATO expansion must proceed smoothly, gradually and openly, without any surprises. This is essential for extending stability, democracy and prosperity throughout Europe. We believe that in parallel with the enlargement of NATO the Alliance must develop and maintain close ties with Russia.

    We affirmed our shared commitment to a political settlement in Bosnia, based on the Contact group plan. The conflict is being prolonged because of Bosnian Serb intransigence. Renewed fighting will not end the conflict but only lead to more bloodshed and continued stalemate. The Prime Minister and I also vowed to continue working together to contain the Iraqi threat to stability in the Persian Gulf region. We are deeply concerned that Saddam Hussein could be regaining the ability to build weapons of mass destruction. We are determined that Iraq must meet all its United Nations obligations. This is no time to relax sanctions. The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously under Saddam’s tyranny and they do deserve the help of the international community. But easing up on a regime that oppresses people will not help them. So while there can be no compromise, the United States, the United Kingdom and Argentina have put forward new proposals at the United Nations to get food and medicine to the people of Iraq. We hope other nations will join these efforts and support our Security Council Resolution and pressure Saddam Hussein to stop the needless suffering of his innocent citizens.

    Prime Minister Major told me a great deal about his recent trip to the Middle East. We both strongly believe this is a hopeful moment for broadening the circle of peace. The United States and Europe must continue to fight the efforts to derail the peace process by those who prefer destruction to peace. It is clear that for peace to take root in the region more economic assistance is vital. Peace and prosperity depend upon one another. I applaud the United Kingdom’s investment programme in the West Bank in Gaza, as well as its debt relief measures for Jordan. We must all continue to support those who take risks for peace.

    Nowhere is this more true than in Northern Ireland. I salute the Prime Minister for the tremendous efforts he is making to bring an enduring peace to Northern Ireland. Today Northern Ireland is closer to a just and lasting settlement than at any time, in a generation, thanks in large measure to the vision and courage of John Major. He and Prime Minister Bruton of Ireland together introduced the joint framework which provides a landmark opportunity to move ahead towards a political settlement, one that will be backed by both of Northern Ireland’s communities. We also agreed that the paramilitaries of both sides must get rid of their weapons for good so that violence never returns to Northern Ireland. And we must work to increase economic opportunity in that area, their prospects have been blighted by bloodshed for too long.

    Next month our White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland will help to expand the ties between the United States, Northern Ireland and Ireland’s border counties. Building those kinds of bonds will help to lead to a better life for all the people of the region. The Prime Minister and I discussed some other issues. We agreed on the need for an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the review conference that begins this month. To further the cause of non-proliferation the Prime Minister joins me in calling for full implementation of the framework agreement we negotiated with North Korea to end that country’s nuclear programme. And we discussed the need to adapt our international institutions to the challenges of the next century at the G7 Summit in Halifax. I was particularly impressed by the thinking that the Prime Minister has done on this profoundly important issue. The United States and the United Kingdom, after all, helped to shape those institutions, they have served our interests for the last half-century.

    With the extraordinary relationship between our countries as important as ever, I am confident that we can make the changes necessary and work together to advance our shared values and our common interests, to promote peace, democracy and prosperity in the years ahead and of course in the century ahead.

    Finally let me say that we discussed the ceremonies that will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Because of my prior commitments I have asked the Vice President to represent me and all Americans in London on 8 May at services that will commemorate the great wartime bravery and sacrifice of so many Britons. And I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Major when we go together to Moscow on 9 May to pay our respect to the heroism of the Russian people in that conflict.

    Mr Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much.

    We have had the opportunity today for a good humoured, worthwhile, productive and very far-reaching series of exchanges on a whole range of matters. The President has set out much of the agenda we discussed and I will not reiterate what the President said except to say that in his remarks he spoke not just for the United States but for the United Kingdom as well. I share the views he expressed and I will not reiterate them.

    We spent some time looking forward at two separate matters which I think are of some importance to both our countries and of wider importance as well. The first of them the President just touched on, and that was the review of the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations that we agreed with the other G7 Heads of Government at Naples last year that we should undertake and return to at Halifax later this year. We have given a great deal of discussion to that and I think for a range of reasons the time is right to look at a fairly comprehensive reform of some of those institutions and we exchanged some ideas today on precisely how we might do that and agreed that we would exchange further ideas before we came to the G7 Summit. I think there is scope to rationalise some of the international financial institutions.

    We wish to look particularly, in addition to that, at the United Nations where there are a number of overlapping functions. I am a very strong supporter of the United Nations and I wish to see the United Nations a successful organisation for the year 2000. It does seem that looking at some of the areas of the UN could well do with up-dating, refreshing, to make sure that they are entirely applicable to the problems they will have to face in the late 1990s and beyond the turn of the century. And I hope very much that we will be able to get together with some more of our ideas and float those in greater detail when we get to the Halifax Summit later on this year.

    We also spent some time looking at the commonality of interest that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States. There are a huge range of areas where there is common interest, not just those that were discussed, the agreements that we have in terms of policy towards Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Bosnia and a range of other areas. But beyond that I think there is a commonality of interest in the future security and prosperity of the Central and East European states, and also with two other matters. First, the further extension of free trade, to which I wish to return in just a second, and second with looking together and combatting together some of the problems of instability, extremism and terrorism that we can begin to see in parts of North Africa, parts of the Levant and parts of the Middle East, and we spent some time considering how we might address some of those problems in the future. It was necessarily a discussion that dealt with problems that may arise, and dealt in some cases frankly with generalities, but it was an opportunity to look forward rather than to just discuss the immediate topical problems that we face at the moment.

    One area of growing importance that we touched on was the possibility of seeing how we can build on the Uruguay Round agreement of a year or so ago, and see how we can move forward to deal with much freer trade in financial services, for example, removing many of the non-tariff barriers that still exist between western Europe and the United States, and seeing how, step by step, we can move forward to a much greater element of free trade between North America and the Western European nations. That is something that needs to be done, I think it is something that is of immense benefit, and I found our discussion on that immensely productive and it is one I know that we will both return to in the future.

    So I found the discussion, not just on contemporary matters of use, but I found the sharing of ideas about how we deal with the development of the transatlantic relationship to deal with the problems that are going to arise in the future, and also the examination of the common transatlantic view on many of the international problems around the world to be a very worthwhile and a very refreshing discussion and I am delighted we were able to have it.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, I would like to ask you about two tax matters at home. Congress has sent you a bill that would provide health and insurance tax reductions for self-employed people, but it also allows billionaires to avoid taxation by renouncing their citizenship. Will you sign or veto that measure? And secondly, the House tomorrow takes up the Republican tax bill that provides benefits for a range of businesses and also a 500 dollar child credit for families earning up to 200,000 dollars a year. I know you have your own approach but can you live with this Republican approach?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    In answer to your first question, I strongly support restoring deductability to self-employed people for the cost of their health insurance, I think it is untenable to have a different standard for them than for corporations, and that was a big part of my Health Care Reform Bill last year. So I am on record strongly in favour of that, as a matter of fact I would like to see it expanded. I am deeply troubled that the Conference Committee took out a payment mechanism by simply asking billionaires who made their money as Americans, who largely made their money in the United States, to pay the taxes they owe and instead to let them evade American income taxes by giving up their citizenship now that they have it made. So I am going to have to look at that very closely and examine whether there might be some other opportunities to achieve that objective. But it is just wrong for us to walk away from that, that is just wrong.

    On the second matter, you know what my views are on that. We have two objectives here. I support the tax relief for the middle class, I support greater tax standards. I think it should be much more focused on things that will raise incomes in the short-term and in the long term, so I favour a sharp focus on educating people and raising children, on families and education, but we cannot afford a cut of that magnitude and do the right thing by the deficit. And we should not be cutting taxes in ways that benefit very wealthy Americans and require us in turn to cut education which will weaken our country as a whole. Education is the middle class social safety net, if you will, it is the key to our economic future as well. So I think that is a big mistake, I think it is too big, we need to focus on the deficit and we don’t need to be cutting education and investment in our future to give tax relief to people who don’t really need it.

    QUESTION (John McIntyre):

    Could I just ask the President whether he accepts the British Government’s analysis that Sinn Fein has not yet gone quite far enough on the decommissioning of arms to justify ministerial talks and also could I ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the backing he has got from the Administration on that issue?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think it is a decision entirely for the British Government to make in negotiations with Sinn Fein when ministerial talks are appropriate.
    I will say this: I was very clear when the Adams visa was granted with permission to fund raise that there must be an agreement – a commitment — in good faith to seriously and quickly discuss arms decommissioning. Without a serious approach to arms decommissioning, there will never be a resolution of this conflict so I would hope there would be no difference in our position on that because I think the Prime Minister is right about that, we have to deal with this arms decommissioning issue and I know that there is an attempt by the Government to work with the paramilitaries on both sides to achieve that objective and that is what I think should be done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add to that point. We have already started discussions at ministerial level with the Loyalist paramilitaries on decommissioning and those discussions are proceeding. What we are seeking to do is to have exactly the same discussions on exactly the same terms with Sinn Fein. If Mr. Adams is serious about moving towards peace – and he has repeatedly spoken about it – then he needs to discuss with the British Government the question of the modalities of decommissioning the arms. We need to know how it can be done, when it can be done, what needs to be done, a whole series of details but that matter has to be discussed.

    I think it is right for that matter to be discussed at ministerial level with Sinn Fein and we have made it perfectly clear that providing they are prepared to discuss that matter – we have suggested what the agenda might be and we are in discussion with them about that – then I think it is right for us to move to ministerial discussion on the decommissioning of arms.

    What is absolutely clear is that unless we are able to make progress on decommissioning of arms, there will be no possibility of Sinn Fein sitting down with the other democratic political parties in Northern Ireland, they simply won’t be prepared to talk about reaching a settlement until there has been progress on decommissioning of arms so I very much hope Mr. Adams will embark upon those discussions speedily.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, could you elaborate on something you said in your opening remarks about your concerns with Iraq in their apparent ability to build weapons of mass destruction?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I didn’t say they had the apparent ability, I said they could be regaining it. I want to be very specific about it. What I mean by that is that unless Mr. Ekeus and the international inspectors can certify that they are in full compliance with all the relevant United Nations Resolutions, then we have no assurance that they are not regaining the capacity to move forward with weapons of mass destruction. That is what I mean but that is all I mean about it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you say you don’t have the evidence?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That they are doing that now, I do not and I want to make clear that is why I used the word “regaining”.

    The United States position, which the United Kingdom has supported and for which I am very grateful, is that we should not relax these sanctions until there is full compliance with the Resolutions. The Resolutions were not passed in a careless way; they are carefully worded Resolutions designed to assure the international community that this cannot happen and unless those, Resolutions are complied with, the international community cannot know that this cannot happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share that view absolutely and I think we need to await Mr. Ekeus’s report; from all I hear, it is not going to be satisfactory about the way Iraq are behaving. We are concerned about the humanitarian aspect of people in Iraq; there is a Security Council Resolution which I trust is going to be passed which will open up a better possibility for Saddam Hussein to sell oil in order to feed people in Iraq; it is an option that will be there, I very much hope he will take that option but on the general relief of sanctions, until he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full and we have seen independent verification that he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full, then we entirely agree that there can be no relief whatsoever from the sanctions that have been imposed.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, having broken bread with Gerry Adams, could you person-to-person, man-to-man, recommend that he speak with Gerry Adams himself?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That is a decision for the Prime. Minister to make in the context of the peace process. I said on St. Patrick’s Day when I spoke then and I will say again that we are where are today because of the risks that John Major has been willing to take for peace and they have been considerable risks to himself, to his party, to his government because he knows that this matter must be resolved and I applaud that.

    The details of the decision-making must be made by the participants and that is a decision for him to make.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with all due respect, your nuclear policy is filled with inconsistencies. You want to stop Russia from building a nuclear reactor in Iran; you want to ease sanctions against Pakistan which we believe is developing nuclear weapons; you want Egypt to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with other states in the area and you never try to persuade Israel, which does have a nuclear arsenal, to sign the treaty. Can you explain?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, the United States does not want Russia to give the capacity to Iran because we don’t want that to be the beginning of their increased capacity to develop nuclear fuel and technology for other purposes and given their conduct, I think that is the right policy and I don’t have any problem with it.

    With regard to Pakistan, the simple question there is whether the policy we have pursued in the last few years is achieving its objectives and whether we will be a stronger force for peace and reconciliation and ultimately for the defanging in terms of weapons of mass destruction in the area if we change our policy or if we stay with it. I think we should seriously review the policy. If you look at the number of people in those countries in South Asia, the potential they represent for the future and the powder keg on which they sit because of their problems, the United States it seems to me has an obligation to do the very best we can to bring about the best result and the most peaceful result and that is all we are doing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct but about producing weapons]

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We don’t support that. We want everybody to be a member of the Non-Proliferation regime; we want everybody to do that and that is why I said what I did to President Mubarak of Egypt. Our position is that we want the largest number of people possible to participate in the Non-Proliferation regime and to go forward with its requirements and we want to keep as many states non-nuclear as possible and we are doing our best to reduce the nuclear threat by reducing the number of nuclear weapons that we have in agreement with the Russians and the states of the former Soviet Union.

    I think that our policy is consistent if you look at what the objective is; the objective is to reduce the threat of nuclear war to the world in the future and to reduce the threat of other weapons of mass destruction. There still is no more significant obligation I have to future generations and that is the common thread running through all these policies.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton):

    Given that the Tories [indistinct] ideologically and given that we understand that Tony Blair of Labour may be coming here soon I wonder if I could ask you how important you think your personal relations are for the relations between our two countries?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, I think that in foreign policy the differences are not easily discernible by party. We have, as you heard today, a broad overlap and indeed in our country the differences among us here in America as Americans in foreign policy don’t tend to break down along party lines. For example, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader supported the position I took on debt relief for Mexico which was opposed by a number of members of their party and a number of members of mine so I think that at the end of the Cold War in this country and I sense throughout Europe perhaps there are forces arguing for a kind of inward-looking approach, a little bit more if not more isolationist, a disengaged approach and there are others who believe we must still continue to broaden the frontiers of relationships, to expand trade in order to support democracy and prosperity. I am in that latter group, Prime Minister Major is in that latter group. Last year, at the G7 meeting, we were the two strongest proponents of expanding opportunities for economic integration of the countries there so I just don’t believe that there is a necessary partisan breakdown to our common objectives in the world community.

    Secondly, I think we have got a good personal relationship and I feel very comfortable about where it is; I think it is honest and open and it endures occasional disagreements but the agreements are far more numerous and over the long run should be the shaping factors of our relationship.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The fact of the matter is that we know one another well enough and the relationship is good enough to have those disagreements and it doesn’t affect the broad swathe of agreement that exists between the two countries. I was fascinated to see that you referred to differences between parties, not within parties, and I think that is a great advance [Laughter]. I am delighted you put it that way!

    Let me just make a broader point really about the Anglo-American relationship.

    At almost any time, it would be astonishing if there wasn’t some measure of difference on an issue between two sovereign governments whether they happen to be Conservative or Labour in the United Kingdom, Democrat or Republican in the United States but against that, I think you have to look at the huge range of things in which the instinctive outlook between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government is exactly the same.

    If you run down most of the great issues of the moment, relationship with Russia, relationship with the Middle East, relationship on terrorism, relationship with Iran, relationship with Iraq, present policy on Bosnia, you won’t find a scintilla of difference between the British Government and the United States Government. If you look at the two nations that were foremost in propounding a free trade agreement – the GATT Agreement – and taking that forward, you will find the same relationship between the British and American governments.

    As for looking forward, I spoke a few moments ago of two areas where we have actually been looking forward today together at what we might actually do in the future and as for whether the relationship is good enough, perhaps I can just give you a practical example.

    If you were to spend a weekend, Adam, on one of our nuclear submarines, you would find a Trident missile on it. I am not sure you could travel on anyone else’s submarine and find a Trident missile on it and I hope very soon in the future that you will be able to see Tomahawk Cruise missiles in the United Kingdom armoury and I am not sure anybody else will have those. They are practical illustrations of the extent of the closeness of the defence, security and other relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States and the fact of the matter is it is sufficiently close – and has been sufficiently close for a large number of years – to enable the President and I to have the occasional disagreement if we want without any harm coming of it.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to go back to the issue of Russia. You said that you do not want the Russians to go forward with their plans to sell nuclear plant to Iran. What, if anything, did you talk about in terms of putting some real pressure on them? Is there anything you can do at this point to stop it from going forward and if they do go forward, will this put a damper on the Western relationship with Russia?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are continuing to have negotiations and discussions with them about it and I think that is all I can really say at this time because we are in the midst of our conversations.

    I thought Helen was going to ask me the question which I thought you asked me the last time which is are we trying to discourage Russia from selling to Iran the technology we are trying to finance in North Korea? The difference is that when I became President I found a full blown nuclear programme in North Korea which I am trying to take down and I don’t want to leave some future President of the United States and the people of Britain with a problem in Iran. If they have to try to take it down, I am going to do the best I can to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    A lot of Americans are still questioning whether you can really rely on Russia in any way?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let’s don’t jump the gun here. We are having these serious discussions, we are working it through. We have a lot of interests in a democratic and a reformist Russia and the Prime Minister and I talked about it at some length today and I think that they have done better economically than either the Prime Minister or I thought that they would a couple of years ago in terms of pursuing the path of reform. They have continued to honour their constitution and their electoral system and obligations to democracy and we are going to have differences from time to time but I wouldn’t assume we can’t work this one out; we are going to keep working hard on it.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the President mentioned your ideas on the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN. How much have you worked that up in detail and what would it actually involve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is developing rather than been developed. We agreed last year that we needed to look at some of the overlap there was in the Bretton Woods institutions and see how we could look at bringing the United Nations a little more up-to-date.

    If I could just give you a couple of illustrations, if you mean have we yet got a detailed worked-out position between the United Kingdom and the United States, the answer is no, we haven’t. We have both been looking separately, as we agreed we would do at the G7 summit last year, at the sort of ideas we might bring forward for discussion with partners at Halifax later on this year and the sort of the things that we are looking at – by “we” I now mean the United Kingdom – in terms of the financial institutions, you will be of the idea we have had in the past of selling some IMF gold to help some of the poorer nations – that is still on the agenda as far as we are concerned.

    Looking at perhaps a greater degree of rationalisation of some of the activities of the IMF, OECD and the World Bank is an area we are looking at.

    We would like to look at the way in which poverty is dealt with through the UN; there seem to us to be a number of overlapping agencies, a certain amount of duplication, which could credibly be looked at. In terms of trade, we would like to see what can be done to bed down the World Trade Organisation satisfactorily. In terms of environment, I would suggest that there are some areas of overlap as well – in the UN Environment Programme and the Commission for Sustainable Development, there seem to be areas of overlap.

    They are just specimen samples of the sort of things we are looking at. I emphasise we are in the early stages of that examination. We haven’t reached any conclusions but I think those are matters we must examine.

    Other things I would like to see us examine at the summit would be to look more comprehensively at crime, drugs and money-laundering; we had a G7 task force on money-laundering some time ago, that has been successful, I think we should re-visit that given the nature of the problem and given the problem that exists internationally with crime and drugs and I think we would like to look a little more carefully at what might be done in terms of conflict prevention. Those are just broad headlines of some of the areas we are looking at; we shared them in general outline today; we will come to them in detail at the summit.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 3 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview following his meeting with Senator Dole in Washington on Monday 3rd April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you gather from the Republicans whether they intend to lift the arms embargo now against the Bosnian Muslims?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say I think that debate will come in May, probably not before May, and heaven alone knows what the outcome of that will be. I took the opportunity this morning when seeing the Majority and Minority leader of running through a whole range of topics. I was particularly pleased to thank Senator Dole for his activities over the Uruguay Round where we were very pleased to get a settlement and he played a very material part in that. We looked at Bosnia, Russia, NATO expansion and a number of related problems like that. I don’t know what the outcome will be on lifting the arms embargo, I think the British government’s position on that is very clear.

    QUESTION:

    But you have not been able to persuade Senator Dole to hold off on that one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter for Senator Dole at a later stage. I understand the very strong emotions that exist about that matter. We have a lot of troops on the ground in Bosnia and we don’t ourselves believe that that is the right way to proceed. But no doubt the House will debate that later in the year.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you why you feel you cannot help Mrs Ingram to save her son from the electric chair?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out the position. I replied to Mrs Ingram’s letter. I gave it very long and careful thought before replying to it. Clearly I understand fully the very deep distress that she must feel. She has written to me again, I have replied today and I think my reply will be given to her very shortly.

    QUESTION:

    Are there no grounds for you to intervene?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is anything further that we are in a position to do.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of practical help are you expecting from the US Administration on pressuring Sinn Fein into decommissioning of arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is no doubt that the American Administration are keen to see these talks continue and keen to see the decommissioning of arms, but I don’t wish to go further than that.

    QUESTION:

    Once this row over Ireland is finished, Prime Minister …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that matter is behind us. We had a disagreement about that, I think it is well known we had a disagreement about that. In the best [indistinct] circles that sort of thing happens from time to time, but I think that is now behind us.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference with Chairman Arafat – 14 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference with Chairman Arafat, held in Gaza on Tuesday 14th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the Chairman and I met in London 15 months ago, I hoped on that occasion to visit Gaza, and I am very pleased now to have been able to do so. Let me say straight away where Britain stands on some of the issues, and make it clear immediately that we stand four-square behind the peace process that is continuing at the present moment.

    Not only do we stand four-square behind it in principle, insofar as we are able to do so, we are taking practical action to help. We have so far pledged something over 120 million dollars to the Palestinian autonomy, some of it comes via our contribution with the European Union, some from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and some of it bilaterally. We are seeking to ensure that the money goes where it will help most – to the police for their running costs, and I don’t think anyone will doubt the importance of the police service; the training, we have got a very large training programme and that is going to be supplemented by a new management training initiative to the Palestinian Autonomy; and of course to infrastructure for areas such as water supply, public health, without which firstly no decent society can prosper, and secondly other investment will not appear without that basic infrastructure.

    I had the opportunity this morning of handing over 50 Land Rovers and mini-buses to the civil police, and beyond that there will be further contributions in bilateral aid for a Know-How programme to be spent on public administration, health, water, education and private sector development, and of course the peace implementation programme for infrastructure projects.

    Let me just say a brief word about the Know-How programme. One of the features of that programme, not just here but elsewhere, but certainly here, is in its multiplier effect. It is there to encourage collaboration between British and Palestinian private sector firms. We strongly believe the private sector has a role to play and I have brought with me on this occasion a very powerful team of British businessmen who have had a very useful Round Table discussion this morning with Palestinian businessmen and Palestinian Ministers. This afternoon they will be pursuing individual contacts and I very much hope that this will lead to an acceleration in the levels of trade and the levels of investment.

    I know that the Chairman proposes to pursue free market policies and to welcome investors into the area. And the private sector is a very important engine of long-term growth and a very important engine of long-term employment and prosperity which is so necessary to underpin the peace process.

    Let me say a word about that process itself. The pursuit of peace in the Middle East is neither straightforward, nor is it simple. It has been a difficult year, it has been difficult to make the advances that have been made, and I believe it is very much to the credit of Chairman Arafat and the Israeli leaders that so much has already been achieved. I think it is important to acknowledge the successes there have been, whilst also acknowledging the things that still need to be overcome.

    Further political and economic progress is going to be absolutely indispensable if the ordinary Palestinian is going to have faith in the promise of a better future as a result of the peace process. As I made clear yesterday, the border closures sadly had the opposite effect.

    The next step, I hope, will be to arrange elections that will underpin the legitimacy and the authority of the Palestinian leadership. When I was in Israel I pressed Mr Rabin to press ahead with arrangements so that elections and redeployment can take place.

    This morning I have reiterated to Chairman Arafat the European Union’s willingness to consider coordinating the international observation of Palestinian elections, and the Chairman has indicated that this would be welcome to him. I think this is very good news, I will take that message back to our partners in the European Union and I am sure that they in turn will welcome that statement. There will be many practical arrangements of course still to be worked out. But involvement by the European Union in implementing the Declaration of Principles represents an entirely new departure for European involvement in assisting the peace process, and it does reflect, I believe, Europe’s desire to take a more active part in promoting peace across the region.

    I found my discussions this morning very worthwhile. I hope that the discussions between the businessmen, which we will hear more of a little later today, have been equally successful and I would like to thank the Chairman and his colleagues for their hospitality. We admire the determination with which the peace process is being pursued despite the difficulties inherent in any such process. We will continue to help it both politically and practically and we wish it every success in the future.

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    We are very happy to have this visit from His Excellency here in Gaza and we had the privilege to meet together and to make a tour all around and we can say that we are very grateful to His Excellency for what he has done for our people and for the peace process from the beginning for the support of his government and his people, great support for the peace process. We had a very successful and very positive discussion this morning and I am sure that he will continue in pushing the peace process, especially as you know we are facing some problems and we are facing the delaying of the implementation of what had been agreed upon. But I am sure that with the continuing support from His Excellency, from the European Union, from the co-sponsors from the others, we will be able to have the stability to carry on the peace process, especially on the Palestinian track.

    We discussed also the European role for the elections. As you know, we have a permanent mission and a permanent committee, a European Committee, a European Mission, to help us in preparing for the peace process, for the election, and at the same time we have sent many groups to Europe for training. And we are very grateful for His Excellency to accept what we had discussed with His Excellency this morning about the very important role for Europe in supervising the next election which we hope will be able to take place very soon and without any delay. As you know, this has been delayed for more than nine months and we hope that we will be able to have the election very soon, including the redeployment from the rest of the West Bank. And I have to thank His Excellency for his efforts in pushing forward the peace process and the implementation of what has been agreed upon.

    At the same time, we are proud that we have these strong bilateral contacts at all levels and we cannot forget this very important discussion which I had in London and which we had today in Gaza, and we have to thank His Excellency and his government for the permanent support which we are receiving at all levels, by all means, financial effort, training effort and other support, so that we can have the ability to build and reconstruct the infrastructure which had been destroyed during the Israeli occupation.

    Many thanks for coming, Your Excellency, and many thanks for your efforts and many thanks for what you are doing to help us in pushing forward the peace process. At the same time we cannot forget this big and very important delegation which accompanied Your Excellency, I mean the British businessmen, and now they are discussing with Palestinian businessmen many important issues and coordination at all levels so that we can have more financial support, more economic support and more experience from them to follow-up the very difficult mission to re-build and reconstruct what had been destroyed during the occupation. I have to thank you, Your Excellency, from my heart, for this visit and for you support which we cannot forget. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your impression on the situation here; and how do you see the role of England in pushing the peace process forward, there was news during the British occupation of Palestine that they took the money… [inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take those points in the order that you presented them to me. As far as the impression is concerned, it is very difficult to form an impression in the very brief period that I have been here and I think it would be unwise of me to generalise about that. What is self-evident is the tremendous task that lies ahead. A start has been made, as you go round you can begin to see hotels, tower blocks, housing beginning to be built. One can see as you drove in some superb beaches which in due course might be a very remarkable local asset for bringing in a substantial amount of tourism. All these things lie in the future so one can see many of the things that need to be done, the nursing training college I have just been to see where they were talking about the plans to build a new hospital. So there is a great deal that is beginning to happen. But the immediate impression is firstly that things are beginning to happen; but secondly that there is an enormous task that lies ahead to carry that beginning forward to provide the right infrastructure and the right well-being for the people who live here.

    As far as what the United Kingdom can do, I think there are two things really essentially the United Kingdom can do. It can play its role politically and diplomatically in assisting the only people who can reach a peace, and that is the representatives of the Palestinians and the Israelis, they are going to reach the peace, we can contribute to that, and we should contribute to that, but it is essentially going to be for them to do. The other area where I think there is a role is in the area of practical assistance, and that was what I was talking about a few moments ago. I don’t think I need elaborate upon it.

    On the Barclays Bank point, that is a wholly novel point to me, I will reflect upon it.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted]

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    [Not interpreted]

    SIMON WALTERS (THE TIMES):

    Mr Arafat, some people have compared the IRA’s armed struggle in Britain to the PLO use of violence in the past. The British Government now wants the IRA to renounce violence and to commit itself to peace. Would you advise Mr. Gerry Adams, the leader of the IRA’s political wing Sinn Fein, to do that?

    Mr. Major, there are reports at the White House from Downing Street that the US President tried to reach you by phone to discuss the Adams issue and couldn’t get through and that you couldn’t get through to him. What is happening, Sir?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it was yesterday, Simon, you asked me to unveil my correspondence with the President and I declined to unveil my correspondence with the President. We write and we speak regularly. I have no doubt we will speak over the course of the next few days. As you have been with me, you will know I have been fairly mobile over the last couple of days but the President and I speak often and if he wishes to speak to me, we will speak. That is equally true the other way round, if I wish to speak to him we do so. If he has been pursuing me I am sure he will find me soon and since you told me that is the case, we will make sure that he does.

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    This is an old question I heard during my visit to Britain and during my visit to Ireland and no doubt we are appreciating too much the line and the peace process everywhere and I am encouraging all the partners everywhere not only here, not only in Ireland but everywhere throughout the peace process.

    SIMON WALTERS:

    Should Mr. Adams renounce violence as you did?

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    I am not giving lessons to anybody but I am supporting this initiative taken by Prime Minister Major and the Prime Minister of Ireland.

    JOHN CRAIG (LONDON DAILY EXPRESS):

    On that same theme, the Prime Minister was making the point yesterday that the next stage of the peace process in Northern Ireland is for the IRA to hand in their weapons; he was saying to us that the ball is very much in the IRA’s court. Would you say now that the IRA must be going to decommission their weapons, lay down their arms?

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    What I have mentioned is clear to the audience.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, if the position of a solution is very well known why have the plans of Mr. Douglas Hogg to come to the country been changed?

    Secondly, is it likely that the latest position may change under the pressure of the Jewish community in Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The British position on Jerusalem has been clear for a very long time and in the Declaration of Principles that was signed by the Chairman and by the Prime Minister of Israel that is a matter to be determined in the final status negotiations and it can only be determined by them, it can’t be determined by Britain, by the United States, by anybody else, it has to be determined by the people who are part of the negotiations. Our position is well known and our position is consistent, has been for very many years and has not changed but that is a matter that will have to be determined between the representatives of the Palestinians and the Israeli government.

    The British position on Jerusalem is that we acknowledge the de facto position. We understand and we have acknowledged that for a very long time but we believe it is a matter that is going to have to be determined between the Palestinians and by the Israelis. In the meantime, neither side should take unilateral advantage of the present situation until that matter is determined in the final status negotiations.

    I would add a further point, if I may. I don’t actually think it is terribly helpful when there are negotiations like that for third parties to express views publicly. I don’t think it actually is helpful so our view has been perfectly clear, it isn’t going to change under pressure of any sort.

    QUESTION (ASSOCIATED PRESS):

    Mr. Major, you referred earlier to supporting the running costs of the Palestinian government but in the past the Western powers have been hesitant to pay for the running costs and Mr. Arafat’s official recently have expressed a desire that this is continued for an extended period in which running costs are covered. Does your country still support that donor countries should pay for Palestinian running costs and various other government expenditures?

    Also, how do you respond to criticism that for all the pledges and promises have been made, the Western powers and donor countries have been exceedingly slow in actually providing direct aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the second point, a substantial amount has been disbursed in the last year, rather more I think will be disbursed this year. I made the point earlier when I met the businessmen that that is going to be necessary and I think that is going to be necessary in the future. There is a genuine problem with running costs. We have been able to help in some ways in the past with police salaries for example where there was a substantial contribution last year. Running costs are going to be a partnership and I think on that partnership basis it can be helped by the collection of taxes by the Palestinian authorities and contributions by donors. I suspect both of those things will be necessary and I think we will be very happy to look at that.

    QUESTION:

    [in Arabic, not translated]

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    [in Arabic, not translated]

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major and Chairman Arafat, at what stage are the talks on the deployment of observers for the elections and have you got any idea of what it would cost, how many people and is this part of the overall plan for assistance to the Palestinians?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The details of those discussions lie ahead. We have discussed the matter this morning and I will take back the position I described to the conference earlier to my partners in the European Union but the detail points you raised are important detail points but they yet have to be discussed with my colleagues in Europe and with others.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. John Major, what is your position concerning the increasing settlement activity in Jerusalem and in……..?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Under the Declaration of Principles, it is perfectly clear that there shouldn’t be more settlement activity and that is our position and had been known for some time.

    CHAIRMAN ARAFAT:

    [in Arabic, not translated]

    QUESTION:

    [indistinct, but relating to whether the Prime Minister expected more peace negotiations and whether that would make the peace process more successful]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly look forward to that. I think the way in which one gets from the beginning of the process to the end of the process is by taking each of the hurdles in front of the negotiators one at a time. That has operated very successfully between the Chairman and the Israeli government in the past. I think that is the only way they can continue in future. I think the 1st July target that has been set is very welcome, I hope it is met.

  • PMQT – 14 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th March 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan. He is accompanied by a large delegation of British business people.

    Mrs. Liddell: The visit of the Prime Minister to the Gaza strip and the donation of equipment and aid are to be welcomed, but why have the Government chosen to donate police equipment when the entire community could have benefited from the excellence of British manufacturing facilities to provide clean water facilities, better health facilities and educational facilities?

    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady clearly was not listening. I said that a large delegation of British business people was with the Prime Minister precisely to see whether we can help with the kind of opportunities to which she refers.

    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend share my disgust at the blatant and continued misrepresentation by press and media of the case of the 10-year-old leukaemia sufferer? Is he aware that Cambridge health authority’s decision to refuse treatment had nothing to do with money but was taken because the overwhelming number of doctors and specialists were not prepared to inflict further suffering on that poor little girl?

    Mr. Newton: It certainly has been made clear by the health authority that funds would have been available if the view of the doctors responsible had been that treatment would have been in the best interests of the child. It is first and foremost a matter of clinical judgement. I think that, however sad, that should be acknowledged. The other thing that should be said is that the whole House will want to wish the girl well in the treatment that she is undertaking today.

    Mr. Prescott rose —

    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a warm enough welcome.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Leader of the House confirm the leaks that are emerging from the Prime Minister’s tour of the middle east that the Greenbury committee proposes to recommend absolutely nothing to curb the greed of the bosses in the privatised utilities?

    Mr. Newton: What I can confirm is that the Prime Minister and, indeed, all my right hon. Friends have made it clear that they attach importance to the work of the Greenbury committee and that they will want to study its conclusions with care and then consider whether it would be appropriate to make any legislative change.

    Mr. Prescott: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, is not the Prime Minister’s support for legislation against pay excesses a sham? Only yesterday the President of the Board of Trade once again defended boardroom greed. When will the Government realise that people in Britain want a fundamental shift so that power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many and not the few?

    Mr. Newton: It sounds to me as though the right hon. Gentleman will need to undertake another rewrite of clause IV before the ink on this one is dry.

    Mr. Wilshire: Last December, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated that Ministers would not talk to Sinn Fein-IRA before huge amounts of weapons were surrendered. This morning, I received a letter from our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stating that talks would take place with Sinn Fein-IRA before weapons were handed in. Which is current Government policy?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has indeed received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend today. I have a copy of it before me. It makes it absolutely clear that, before Ministers will engage in talks in the way that Sinn Fein currently seeks, there must be a clear and reliable assurance from Sinn Fein that constructive discussion, especially in achieving substantial progress on decommissioning arms, would be facilitated and accelerated by Ministers joining that dialogue. No such assurance has been received, and I think that what is being said and done is entirely consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said before and, indeed, with what is sensible and practicable in seeking a way forward in Northern Ireland.

     

    Q2. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Eagle: On executive pay, will the Leader of the House admit that the public know that the Greenbury committee is a con, because it is full of the very fat cats who are earning millions of pounds, who are protecting their own pay and positions? Does he not realise that asking that bunch to legislate to curb excesses of executive pay is like asking Dracula to guard the blood bank?

    Mr. Newton: The answers to the hon. Lady’s questions are no, no and no, in that order.

    Mr. Elletson: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on the possible reasons why the historic commitment to full employment, endorsed by generations of Labour party members, has now been abandoned by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    Mr. Newton: It is perhaps not for me to speculate about the causes of Opposition policy changes, but, if I were driven to do so, I would venture the opinion that the penny has finally dropped that their commitment to a minimum wage, a social chapter and a further renewal of trade union powers is incompatible with full employment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister note that the former and the present Secretary of State for National Heritage have not replied to the Select Committee on National Heritage report, “Privacy and Media Intrusion”? As it is now exactly two years since the Select Committee presented its report, why have the Government have failed to respond to it? What is he afraid of, and will he apologise to the House for the delay?

    Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will seek to reply as soon as the very difficult issues involved have been thoroughly considered and studied.

    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the rewritten clause IV is 400 words of waffle– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant today, but I remind hon. Members that we holding the Executive to account for their policies, not for the policies or the activities of any other party. If the hon. Lady can rephrase that question, I will give her an opportunity to do so, but she must seek to bring the Government to account.

    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we were ever to have a clause IV, it would not contain 400 words of waffle?

    Mr. Newton: I am afraid that my hon. Friend’s question was slightly lost in Opposition Members’ baying. I am certainly aware that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has described the new clause IV as 400 hundred words of waffle. It is absolutely clear that it takes us no nearer to what we really need: some clarification of Labour’s policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Wilson: We can understand the reluctance of the Leader of the House to answer questions about executive pay and share options, so perhaps we can move the debate forward a little. Do the Government intend to devolve other areas of Government policy to sub-committees of millionaires appointed by the CBI? Will the recommendations of those committees be final and, if so, is that what is meant by the “smack of firm leadership” from the Government?

    Mr. Newton: I do not think that I have shown any reluctance to answer the questions–it is just that Opposition Members do not like my answers. As the main thrust of the question refers to a matter that is principally for shareholders to decide, it seems entirely correct to consult and to take the views of such a committee.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that prizes from the national lottery now amount to almost £500 million? Is it not excellent news that a substantial amount of money has been allocated to the good causes supported by the lottery?

    Mr. Newton: Indeed it is very good news. The national lottery is certainly giving pleasure to many people and it is yielding both large prizes for the winners and large amounts of additional money for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the Millennium Commission. It has been a huge success, which is very much to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I think that that success will continue and will grow.

     

    Q5. Mr. Fisher: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Fisher: On executive pay, will the Leader of the House answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and explain what the Government intend to do about it? What sort of Prime Minister says that he finds something distasteful but then says that he does not have the first idea of what he wants to do about it and simply leaves it to the CBI to tell him what Government policy should be? What sort of Government do that?

    Mr. Newton: What the Government are going to do is what I have said at least twice this afternoon and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on many other occasions: we will study the recommendations of the Greenbury committee with care and we will then decide what action to take, including the possibility of legislation if that seems appropriate.

    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Clinton’s decision to meet Mr. Adams on Thursday and to allow Mr. Adams to raise funds on behalf of Sinn Fein-IRA is a grave blow to the United States’ special relationship with this country, and indeed to the cherished links with the Republic of Ireland and the majority of the Irish people who are opposed to Mr. Adams’s violence and terrorism?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his views very clear to the President. The United States Administration are in no doubt about our views. I hope that everyone will now acknowledge that it is important to maintain pressure on Sinn Fein from all sides to engage in substantive constructive discussions along the lines that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has indicated. I hope that the need for Mr. Adams to engage in such constructive and substantive discussions will be emphasised firmly and vigorously in any meetings with the United States Administration.

     

    Q6. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. MacShane: In view of the fact that most independent jurists do not consider the courts of Singapore to be independent of the Executive and in view of the desire for a full judicial spotlight on the Barings affair in London, will the Leader of the House assure us that every effort is being made to extradite Mr. Nick Leeson from Germany so that he can stand trial in London?

    Mr. Newton: The House will understand that I do not think it right to get drawn into commenting from the Dispatch Box on the legal position in other Commonwealth countries. The Government are determined to make every effort to ensure that the Barings events are properly and thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action is taken in the appropriate courts.

     

    Q7. Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a letter of appreciation that I recently received from an Anglican clergyman in my constituency, who does not often support the Government’s policies but who greatly appreciates the education that his daughter has received as a result of the assisted places scheme? He knows of many other low-income families in his parish whose children have benefited in the same way. How shall I respond to my constituent’s request to learn whether the assisted places scheme has a future and whether it is safe?

    Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that not only his constituent but many thousands of other parents throughout the country welcome the assisted places scheme, which has provided an excellent education in independent schools to many able pupils from low-income families. It has been outstandingly successful. The assurance I can give my hon. Friend and his constituent is that the assisted places scheme is safe under us. It is certainly not safe under the Opposition.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Jerusalem – 13 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference in Jerusalem on Monday 13th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words about the trip so far which to date has certainly exceeded my expectations. We have been met with a great deal of friendship and kindness, a great deal of hospitality, and I would like to express my gratitude to our host for that at the outset.

    There has also been a substantial personal dimension to much of what we have seen and done. This morning at Yad Vashem, the first time I have had the opportunity to visit there, showed two things I think very clearly, it reminded one of the depths of depravity of human behaviour, but also the extent to which the human spirit can overcome it, and I found it a very remarkable experience to go there.

    What has struck me very forcibly in the meetings thus far is the extent to which the ties that exist between the United Kingdom and Israel are so numerous, so personal, so widespread, that in many aspects of them the role of governments in many ways seems superfluous. Over the years official relationships have had their ups and downs, but despite that, the personal relationships have continued to improve right across the board. And those relationships, I discover, have their own momentum.

    But if I can just return to the role of government, I think that properly is to pave the way for the enterprise and resourcefulness of individuals, and that was very much the initiatives I have announced thus far during my visit: the UK/Israel Arts Fund; a doubling of the science and technology research fund; and the new award scheme for excellence in the English language.

    Beyond that, I have brought with me more than 20 top captains of British industry to open new doors in what is already a rapidly growing commercial relationship. And to put the size and potential interest of those companies into a proper perspective, perhaps I should mention that collectively they represent companies whose turnover is in excess of 100 billion dollars each and every year. They were meeting with their Israeli counterparts this morning and I had the privilege of opening the UK/Israeli Round Table. That went on long after I had left the meeting to go on elsewhere, but both sides have continued their meeting and I believe it has been extremely successful.

    They have agreed to establish more regular links, they have agreed to set up, as I had hoped they would, an Israel/Britain Business to Business Council, precisely the sort of result which can ensure that the business relationship continues to improve.

    I have just returned in the last few minutes from the Tefen High Technology Industrial Park which, apart from the remarkable opportunities offered, provided a glimpse of the future. I have seen robotics factories before, but I think the robotics factory I saw there was as good as any I have seen anywhere in the world, robots undertaking each and every function. No doubt at some stage in the future we would not need a press conference like this, robots could accurately report everything that had been said, and you can imagine the surge of optimism that passed through me when I thought of that possibility.

    I have no doubt, on the basis of what I have seen already in this visit, that there are remarkable prospects for new and improved trade and investment between the United Kingdom and Israel, and that British industry, if I may speak for them, is ready, willing and able to seize those opportunities.

    On a political front I had the opportunity yesterday and this morning of some very substantive discussions with the Prime Minister, and with the Foreign Minister, and they both gave me an account of Israel’s negotiations with the European Union for a cooperation agreement. I made very clear to them that Britain very strongly supports the liberalisation of trade and very strongly supports free trade. We welcome without equivocation the prospect of a cooperation agreement between the European Union and Israel, and we are pressing for early conclusion of that agreement. I know there have been some difficulties in that and I have invited the Israeli government to let me have the details of the particular problems that have arisen in the negotiations and, where that seems appropriate, I agreed to take them up and discuss them with our European Union partners.

    Discussion of a range of economic matters led to a wider point upon which the Prime Minister and I were very firmly agreed, and that is the development of economic activity, and the increasing prosperity and employment that follows that growing economic activity, is the best and surest antidote to terrorism. I took the opportunity of repeating Britain’s unswerving support for the peace process here in the Middle East, I very strongly welcome the agreements reached recently between the Foreign Minister and Chairman Arafat. Elections in the Palestinian autonomy, which now seem likely to take place this year, would be a huge boost to the peace process.

    The European Union I believe has its own role to play in that and underpins its support for that process with very substantial aid, it is the main provider of assistance to the Palestinians, it has pledged thus far nearly 600 million dollars, of which the United Kingdom’s share is around 100 million dollars. I will myself be announcing some further assistance to the Palestinians and Jordan in the next couple of days.

    Of course in our discussions there is one thing that remains key for Israel, and understandably so, and that is the question of security and I think no-one would contest the importance of that. At the same time I think the Palestinians need to see real improvement in their lives, both politically and economically, if their support for the peace process is to be sustained, and that is why we are concerned about the effects of repeated closures of the border. We hope that security conditions will permit them to be re-opened and then kept open.

    As you may imagine, our discussions were informed by a common revulsion for terrorism and I was able to confirm to the Prime Minister that we will continue to give appropriate protection to Israeli and Jewish premises in the United Kingdom.

    This visit is very far from over. This afternoon I look forward, after our brief press conference, to meetings with President Weizman, with the Speaker of the Knesset, the Leader of the Opposition and the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. Tomorrow morning I will visit the Commonwealth War Graves cemetery at Mount Scopus. And I suppose that this, the 50th year since the end of the Second World War, reminds us more vividly perhaps than on previous occasions of the debt we owe to the people who lie there.

    One overriding impression of the visit, I think that is the extent that Britain and Israel have to offer each other. A number of opportunities and new openings have presented themselves in the last couple of days. I daresay there are many others that exist that have not presented themselves on this occasion but will, I hope, as the relationship develops. I intend to see that these opportunities are exploited to the full because I believe that will be to the benefit of Britain, to the benefit of Israel and to the benefit of relations between us. There will be lots of gainers and no losers.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Channel 2 News):

    My question is about the Carlucci Point, while standing at the Carlucci Point and watching the region and the sensitivity of the region of the Eamun Mountain, taking into account that this mountain will be given back to Syria in our negotiations, what is your impression concerning the security of Israel which you just mentioned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is essential that we make progress, that Israel and Syria make progress down the Syrian track. The concept of land for peace – land for security, to put it more aptly I think – is one that has been around in the negotiations for some time. I doubt that there are many people who believe that we will be able to carry this process to a conclusion unless there is progress down the Syrian track. I hope that the meetings that Warren Christopher has had in the last couple of days will help provide a key that will move it forward. But what is clear is that the Golan will be handed back providing there is an agreement that satisfies Israel’s security. Israel will need to be satisfied on that and I was reassured about that point this morning.

    QUESTION (Steve Edwards, IBA News, Israel TV):

    What role do you foresee for the UK to play in the current peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we can assist. We cannot make the peace and we cannot negotiate the peace. The peace will only be reached if an agreement can be reached between the Palestinians and the Israeli government, that is the only way peace can be reached. But I think there is a role for large nations around the world and I think the role perhaps can best be expressed in two ways. Firstly, to give an unqualified support to those people who are seeking to progress the peace process. It is not easy, whenever one moves down a particular path like this there are domestic difficulties, domestic fears, old worries, old problems to overcome, it takes a great deal of courage both for the Palestinian leaders and for the Israeli leaders to march down that particular road. So firstly I think the diplomatic support that the international community can give is very valuable, it is more than ephemeral. The second point of course is the practical aspect of aid and practical assistance. There is no doubt, as I indicated a moment or so ago in what I had to say by way of opening remarks, that if you can remove many of the causes that feed people into a terrorist background, the very low quality of life, the very low standard of living, to raise some hope and opportunities where none existed before, then you have made a significant contribution towards it being possible for a settlement to be reached. And that I think is a legitimate role for the rest of the G7 and the rest of the world, hence the financial support I mentioned, and that was something I spent some time discussing with the Foreign Minister this morning and also the Prime Minister yesterday.

    QUESTION (ISRAEL INSIGHT MAGAZINE):

    A century ago, Queen Victoria said that the Bible was the greatness of the British Empire and a few years later Britain fulfilled a Bible verse “I will bless them that bless Israel and I will curse him that curses it!” by uttering the Balfour Declaration and she was blessed a month later with the liberation of Jerusalem and a year later with victory in World War I. Only 25 years later, in this hotel, because of her betrayal of that Declaration, the British Empire reached a climax of being dissolved.

    Has Britain learned her lesson yet of Genesis 12.3 and the power, truth and certainty of the Bible?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure I would see cause and effect in quite the way you describe it. I think there are many aspects to the historical events you refer to. What concerns me is not to look back at different interpretations of past historical events; what concerns me here today is what we can do in practice to remove a sore that has plagued the Middle East for far too long.

    If you look at what is happening around the world, unless the Middle East is able to reach a settlement – I speak of it in its generality, not just in the specificity of Israel – then many people who live in the Middle East will find their relative standard of living falling increasingly behind people in other parts of the world; that is dangerous politically and it is wrong morally so what concerns me is to see what can be done here and now today, not looking back historically, to try and assist those who are seeking an accommodation, seeking a peace, so that the advantages of inward investment can appear and the advantages of cooperation across the Middle East can become more evident. I think that is more fruitful for a modern political figure to deal with.

    QUESTION (VOICE OF ISRAEL RADIO):

    Mr. Major, I would like to ask you about another peace process, not the one in our region. Gerry Adams in the United States challenged you and said you should follow President Clinton’s and the government of Dublin’s example and accept Sinn Fein’s democratic mandate and he also said six months of the cessation of hostilities of the IRA. What is going to be your response and Britain’s next step in that domain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The road is open to Mr. Adams to progress this. If Mr Adams is concerned about peace and wishes to see it move forward, then he has no need of weapons. He has no reason not to enter into discussions on the modalities of decommissioning weapons, no reason at all and what we are saying to the political representatives of Sinn Fein in our discussion is let us discuss not just broad waffly views about what one actually needs to do about arms, let us actually discuss the practical modalities of disposing of the arms that no peaceful body needs.

    That is what I wish Sinn Fein to enter into. I wish them to enter into it with a clear commitment that they are entering into discussions on the decommissioning of arms with the intention of reaching a conclusion to those discussions. I don’t want to hear, as I heard from Mr. McGuinness on the radio the other morning, that the new statement meant nothing new, that it was exactly where Sinn Fein had been before.

    We need progress. There have been six months of peace and it has been a blessed boon, that is certainly true; it has revolutionised the way of life in Northern Ireland. That everybody in Northern Ireland wants to ensure is that it isn’t just six months, that it is going to go on and that nobody is going to return to violence and that the fear that is excited on both sides by paramilitaries on both sides having weapons can go away because the paramilitaries will remove their weapons and that is what I am talking to you about today, that is what I wish to see Sinn Fein do, it is what I wish to see the Protestant paramilitaries do.

    In order to achieve that, let them discuss properly the practical modalities of decommissioning weapons so that those weapons can be taken out of service and then the other political parties will be in a position to sit down and talk to Sinn Fein to hammer out a permanent agreement that will remove the horrors Northern Ireland has seen for the last quarter of a century from the scene for good. That is what I wish to see.

    CHRISTOPHER WALKER (THE TIMES):

    Mr. Prime Minister, as a result of your experiences here, when you return to London have you in mind to suggest that Her Majesty the Queen should reinforce and cement the improvement of Anglo-Israeli relations by taking up an invitation that has been made to her fairly repeatedly over the 48 years since the state was founded?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prince Philip had a very successful visit here and I can’t anticipate what decisions Buckingham Palace will take but I have no doubt that in due course the Queen will visit.

    JEREMY BOWEN (BBC):

    We heard you yesterday dismiss any suggestion of any similarity between your meeting with Mr. Arafat and President Clinton’s invitation to Mr. Adams but do you have any sympathy with people who see certain parallels in the peace process here and the peace process in Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not on those grounds. I don’t think the similarities are there when one actually looks at where we are in the process. We are at a different stage in the process in the two sets of negotiations.

    If one takes the Middle East process, the Israelis and the Palestinians have been meeting at senior level for a long time; Chairman Arafat and the Prime Minister of Israel have met on a significant number of occasions; Chairman Arafat has also met other significant Israelis, that has been happening regularly for some time so there is certainly no reason why I shouldn’t meet Chairman Arafat as indeed I did at Downing Street last year; some people seem to have forgotten that that meeting took place and that it was actually December 1993.

    As far as the relationship with the Irish peace process is concerned, as you will have heard from the answer I gave a few moments ago, we are rather earlier in the process and I think I made those points last evening and there is no point in me reiterating them now.

    COLIN BROWN (THE INDEPENDENT):

    Prime Minister, we understand that you have sent a letter to President Clinton. I wondered if you could perhaps give us something of the flavour of the contents of the letter and perhaps characterise your feelings towards the President at the moment. Also could you say how soon it will be before ministers actually start meeting Sinn Fein representatives?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am in touch with Bill Clinton on many occasions over many subjects and I haven’t yet reached the stage where I need to express my views to him using your good offices, Colin, and I don’t intend to on this particular occasion.

    We are in touch on this issue and on a range of other issues because we have got a very large number of interests in common with the United States I have no intention of elaborating upon the exchanges we have had on this or indeed on any other subject.

    We have got a huge degree of common interests with the United States and a huge degree of areas where there is very close cooperation; peace and stability in Europe, there could scarcely be closer cooperation than there is between the United States and Britain in NATO; in the Middle East and I think this trip indicates that particular point; in the G7, in the G8. I could extend that list for some time, The relationship of mutual interests between two of the great English-speaking democracies is very close and I don’t intend to delve into the details of my exchanges, tempting though your offer may be.

    QUESTION:

    The Foreign Minister this morning said he had asked Great Britain to help support an industrial park, one of the eight that is planned for the borders of West Bank and Gaza. Is Great Britain interested in supporting such a park and if so, could you discuss what type of financial commitment that would involve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t know the answer to that yet. We discussed the idea and a number of other ideas in the generality, we haven’t yet got down to the specifics. We will examine the specifics, we will look at it with an open mind and see whether it is practical. The idea is not just that Britain should do this but that a number of other countries should as well and I can see some attractions in it but as yet it hasn’t been costed, it hasn’t been considered, it hasn’t been prepared. There are many things that we need to examine and we will certainly examine them.

    JOHN CRAIG (DAILY EXPRESS):

    But your reluctance to disclose the contents of your letter to President Clinton does rather suggest the tone was somewhat frosty and it does appear that his feting of Mr. Adams has rather soured the relationship between Britain and the United States at a time when you are due to go there in three weeks’ time. Have relations been damaged and are you still going?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    John, I don’t tell you what my private letters are to a whole range of people and I have no intention of starting with Bill Clinton, that doesn’t seem to be the right place to start publishing my correspondence so I don’t think you should draw those particular conclusions. I just indicated a moment ago a whole series of areas where Britain and the United States have very close interests and will continue to have very close interests. I don’t suppose we are always going to agree on each and every subject on each and every occasion and there is nothing new about that, that has always been the case but it isn’t going to affect the overwhelming degree of mutual interest that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain,

    SIMON WALTERS (THE SUN):

    But Prime Minister, be honest! As you have said yourself, this is a matter which affects life and death in Britain and Bill Clinton has stabbed us in the back by the way he has treated Gerry Adams, hasn’t he? It might wreck the whole peace process.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to add to what I have said already, Simon. I am concerned to make sure that we are able to carry forward as far as we can, as safely as we can, a process that I believe if successful will change for good the whole way of life in Northern Ireland. Sometimes, that means you don’t say all the things you may be doing in public, it is necessarily the case. I think it is important to keep this process on track, I think it is important that pressure is put on Sinn Fein so that they will agree to examine the modalities of decommissioning their weapons and then proceed beyond the modalities to actually decommission those weapons. There is no doubt that that is going to be necessary and for anyone who is talking about peace, it ought to be a step, it seems to me, that they would be prepared to take and I very much hope Mr. Adams will be prepared to take it and I hope that course is urged upon him.

    JIM COOPER:

    Mr. Major, can you tell us what the British role is going to be in promoting trade, economic development and cooperation on employment between the autonomoustic regions and Israel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter that is still going to be the subject of a great deal of discussion between the Israelis and the embryo Palestinian authority. I think this is classically an area – to go back to one of the earlier questions that I was asked – where there can be a good deal of external assistance both in terms of resources and perhaps more practical assistance as well.

    It is certainly going to be necessary, as you imply, that a great deal is done to improve employment and other prospects within the Palestinian autonomy; that, I think, is true beyond doubt. That is self-evidently in the Palestinians’ interests. I believe and so does the Israeli government that it is very much in their interests as well to see the quality of life and employment prospects improve there and for any external government who wishes to see peace in the Middle East, they too have a direct interest in it but the mechanics of how that will be brought about are still to be the subject of a great deal of discussion both between the Palestinians no doubt and external donors – very probably I will discuss some of these issues tomorrow – and also of course between the Israeli government and the Palestinians.