The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 4 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview given in London on 4th September 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he was pleased with progress in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say we made some progress on Ireland and I am very pleased with that, perhaps a good deal more progress than many of my critics suspected but there is still a long way to go. The ceasefire is very welcome but we still have a long way to go before we have a permanent settlement and we can be absolutely certain about the future of Northern Ireland.

    As to why now, we have had in the last 25 years – perhaps one might almost say in the last 300 years – a diet of bloodshed, hatred and fears ranged on either side. I thought I saw the circumstances in which we could move beyond that to end the violence and provide a settlement and it was upon that basis that I decided we should try and it has been at the top of my agenda since I first went to Downing Street.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the clock was ticking].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not entirely sure about that yet. The ceasefire has now been in force for a few days. We haven’t had an absolutely unambiguous signal that this is for good, but we have had a whole series of intimations that that may be the case. I can understand why Mr Adams doesn’t want to use the British form of words by saying “Here is a formal renunciation of violence!”, I can understand the political difficulties he has in using that form of words. I don’t mind another form of words that makes it clear beyond any doubt at all that come what may there will be no return to violence. I think they are edging towards that, they certainly edged towards that over the last few days with what Mr McGuinness and others have said. I am not absolutely sure they are precisely there yet but we will review that over the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Albert Reynolds was convinced on the wording, but he himself wasn’t].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must all make our judgements but I am responsible for the security in Northern Ireland, that is the distinction. I have to be certain that there is confidence in Northern Ireland amongst all the people of Northern Ireland that this violence has ended for good. After so many years, people are bound to be uncertain about things. A huge range of frankly rather absurd things have been said; I can say categorically there have been no secret deals, no secret negotiations, no secret understandings but after all the years of bloodshed you can understand people’s uncertainty about that in Northern Ireland.

    If this is going to succeed, if we are really going to carry the present circumstances through to a satisfactory and final conclusion, then we must have the confidence of all the people in Northern Ireland and I must make sure I can carry that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there had been progress].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been progress. I am not sure it is quite sufficient yet but there has been progress and we need just a little more.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if just a few more words were needed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just a little more.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the right words were made, would he back-date the dead-lines].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us have the words first. I am going to take this matter cautiously and I don’t think that is a question of anything other than prudence. We have had 25 years of murder, that is what the people of Northern Ireland have faced. If we are to carry their confidence, I return to the same point again because it is crucial that unless there is confidence amongst the Catholics in Northern Ireland and amongst the Protestants in Northern Ireland about what is happening then the old fears will be raised, there will be plenty enough people who wish to raise those fears who simply don’t believe we can make progress. I believe we can. I don’t want to see this whole affair frozen in hopelessness any longer. I think there is a prospect of moving forward but we are more likely to sustain what happens if we take it cautiously, clearly and carry people with us as we do it. I am not going to snatch at something on the first day.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland (II) – 31 August 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview given in London on Wednesday 31st August 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the IRA announcement went far enough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you raise an extremely important point. The fact there is to be a cessation of violence is very welcome. But what I need to know, and what the people of Northern Ireland need to know, is that this is not for a week, is not for a month, is permanent, and as soon as we know that that is permanent then we can begin to consider how to move forward. It may be that this is intended to indicate a permanent cessation of violence, I hope it is and I hope it will be made clear that that is the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the IRA needed to use those words].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not hung up on the particular words, I would like them to make it clear that as far as they are concerned, what they have called the armed struggle is over, that they have finished with violence for good. I do not mind how they phrase it as long as it is unambiguously clear that this is the end of the violence, that is what I wish to hear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Unionists would find the IRA announcement inadequate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is still a great deal to be done, but I think if many people had said a year ago, could you reach the situation we have now reached they would have said “No”. We now have the position where there is a cessation of violence, perhaps it is permanent, I hope so, we can then move forward to a proper constitutional future for Northern Ireland. I think that is a very great prize. What concerns me is not semantic criticism but the end of bloodshed in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could measure that].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We need two things, don’t we? We firstly need it to be made clear that this is intended to be a permanent cessation of violence, and then of course we need to see those words carried out, we need see the deeds, we need a period in which violence actually ceases. And as we set out in the Joint Declaration, if it is clear that it is permanent, and if the violence then ceases for a period up to three months, within that three month period we will then begin to talk to Sinn Fein about how we bring them into the constitutional talks, that is a great prize for everyone.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland (I) – 31 August 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview given in London on Wednesday 31st August 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Gerry Adam’s offer of permanent peace was sufficient or what a permanent ceasefire was needed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It truly isn’t a semantic point. Firstly, let me say I think the statement that has been made today is very welcome and it is a very great advance and to have this cessation of violence is a remarkable move forward but I think we do have to be clear that this is permanent, that it isn’t a temporary cease-fire that will be turned over at some stage and the armed conflict, as the Provisionals call it, will begin again. We must be certain it has ended.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Gerry Adams had to use exact words].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no. He doesn’t actually have to use the words I did but I think he has to make it clear unambiguously that this is the end of the use of violence, that they aren’t going to return to violence in pique if they don’t get their way at some future stage and there is a very practical reason for that.

    What we have said in the Joint Declaration is that once there is a permanent renunciation of violence, after a period has elapsed in which that promise has been kept and there has been no violence we will talk to Sinn Fein about how to bring them into the democratic process. We cannot do that under the duress that they may return to armed conflict; we cannot do it and neither could any British Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Gerry Adams saying he wanted a permanent peace was not enough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen what he said but I do know that it is perfectly clear he must make it unambiguously the case that whatever happens they will not return again to violence. As I have said, I am not hung up on a particular form of words but he must make that clear. That isn’t a new condition I should say; that is something that has been set out time and time again over many months and Mr Adams is well aware of that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he accepted that Gerry Adams had a political problem in getting his supporters to back him on a ceasefire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have indicated for many months what is necessary and I have made the point just now and repeat it again. It isn’t just a semantic point, it is a very real point. It isn’t a practical proposition to move forward, begin to enter into discussions with Sinn Fein about how to bring them into the talks and then let them lightly suddenly return to using violence. That is impossible. It isn’t right. I hope and believe that what they mean by their statement is that this is a permanent end of violence, but I don’t know it. I wish to be reassured about that. The terms in which they do it, there can be many ways in which they do it.

  • Joint Doorstep Interview with Sir Patrick Mayhew and James Molyneaux – 31 August 1994

    Below is the text of the joint doorstep interview with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Sir James Molyneaux, given outside 10 Downing Street on Wednesday 31st August 1994.

    [some sections were inaudible and are marked with …]

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I retain my view which I think is broadly reflected by the … which put together the Declaration, that is the two governments plus the American Administration plus Mr. Hume for example, that there has to be a total permanent cessation of violence and that is set out very clearly and very concisely in paragraph 10 of the Declaration.

    As I said to you earlier, I am very glad that there has been a halt to the killing in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom and I hope that those who have influence with the IRA will now be able to persuade them to take the next decisive step and make the halt permanent – that is a very simple operation.

    QUESTION:

    … the word “permanent” written into the statement?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    The Declaration made that the key, it made it the trigger for the entry into the exploratory discussions and the countdown thereto so I am sure, as I say, that those who have influence with Sinn Fein/IRA will persuade them to take that second step because quite clearly they haven’t felt able to take it today.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Molyneaux, is it your view that the 90-day clock cannot start running yet and is that view shared inside No. 10?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    They will speak for themselves but after all they signed the Declaration, I didn’t, contrary to what people said at the time; the two governments signed it, it was a joint product and they knew what they were doing when they worded paragraph 10 which said hat there had to be not only a permanent cessation of violence but there had to be a repudiation of violence and from that would follow the period of cooling-off – somebody at an earlier stage said “decontamination period”, actually a Dublin minister – and at that stage then there would be exploratory discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA as to how they could enter the democratic process.

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget that they are not excluded from the democratic process because as you know they have a considerable number of councillors in the councils in Northern Ireland and you will also remember that they fielded candidates for Jim Prior’s 4-year Assembly, they got elected to that body but like the SDLP they boycotted it and didn’t take their seats.

    QUESTION:

    Can we be quite clear that as far as you are concerned the 90-day clock does not start running from today?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    That is correct because Mr. Hume would claim to be one of the joint authors of the Declaration and as Mr. Hume is a very close buddy of Mr. Adams, he will have explained precisely to him what paragraph 10 means and what is required of Mr. Adams and what is required of the IRA, namely a permanent cessation of violence and as I say, I am not making that demand today, I am simply saying that it be done today and simply saying that those who have influence with the IRA I hope will be able to persuade them to take that second modest but very vital step in the very near future because that will be for the good of all of us including themselves.

    QUESTION:

    … by saying they have not to use the word “permanent”?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I am not singling out words, I am simply saying that they meet a requirement which is not present today. It is a cessation of hostilities, that is all it is, that is not convincing, that is the problem and I think any fair-minded person would recognise that it is inadequate as it stands.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but regarding British Government’s position]

    MOLYNEAUX:

    They will be making their position clear but I think you, ladies and gentlemen, listened to the Prime Minister at an earlier stage. I didn’t hear what he said but my secretary did hear and it wasn’t very different, I think, from what I had been saying before he made the statement.

    I don’t think we are that far apart nor do I think the Irish Government is that far apart and I know for a fact – and it had better now be mentioned this point – that the White House is not very far apart from what I have just said because I had a telephone conversation with them this afternoon about thirty minutes before I came here so they are broadly in line with the attitude I have been taking.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Adams this afternoon was saying that the onus is now on the Prime Minister to seize the moment but from you are saying obviously that is not your view?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    No, the onus can’t possibly be on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister set out the Declaration and paragraph 10 with Mr. Reynolds, they stood on the steps behind me here when they made that statement and nobody quarrelled with them at that time, nobody said: “Well, you should go out now and take the initiative!” The initiative was taken; in the minds of a good many people in Northern Ireland it was too generous an initiative but it was taken, it was there, fair ‘does’ for everybody and it is up to, as I say, particularly those who would claim to have influence and those who have influence with the IRA to be the persuaders.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    MOLYNEAUX:

    My message would be what it has consistently been, that there is no justification or excuse for violence on the part of anyone and the Loyalist paramilitaries clearly understand my position; they have been making statements which are moving towards the position which we would all like to see them adopting but that is for them to decide, it is not for me to bully them into it.

    QUESTION:

    Did you get an assurance from Mr. Major that the London and Dublin governments will press the IRA now to hand over their arms as well as declaring a cessation of violence because presumably if it is permanent cessation of violence those arms will not be required

    MOLYNEAUX:

    It wasn’t a matter we were dealing with today because we had more immediate matters on our hands but that is the natural outcome. In the interests of internal discipline – if you could call it that – within any armed body if decisions are going to be implemented it is in their own interests that they should surrender arms and they shouldn’t be left lying about because we have had far too many accidental casualties.

    QUESTION:

    Would you expect the IRA to take this step publicly by saying it is permanent, not by private communication with the British Government

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I am simply saying that they can because they will be asked by and your opposite numbers in Dublin no doubt exactly what the meaning of their statement is and they will be asked if it is in conformity with the Declaration and I hope that they will feel that they can take that not unreasonable step and say: “Right! We are not playing with words, we are simply saying that the armed struggle is over for good; this is a permanent end to violence!”

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I did say when I was in America to your colleagues over there at the press conference that the ice, was beginning to crack up and that the violence could happen [cease?] somewhere within the next two years, that was in the month of April because I had that instinct and I still have that.

    QUESTION:

    If the cessation of violence is permanent, how long do you think it will last?

    MOLYNEAUX:

    I have no idea but there would be a hideous risk of course to life in Northern Ireland if it were only a halt or a cessation so therefore the security forces and the chiefs of the security forces – both the RUC and the GUC – have a bounden duty to do two things: to ensure that the civilian population in Northern Ireland is not put at the risk of a sudden upsurge, a sudden mass attack by armed forces in Northern Ireland and secondly, those two commanders have a duty to their own men in both the Army and the RUC and other ancillary bodies to ensure that they are not caught in some sudden outburst of violence which could be very deadly indeed so that is why I think that it will be clearly understood by all reasonable people that there has got to be a permanence about this operation and a gradual scaling down after the permanency is demonstrated and achieved.

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    I would just like to say before I cross over to Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister has had the latest of a series of very useful discussions which are frequently held between him and Mr. Molyneaux.

    It was recognised at once that there was absolutely no question there having been any kind of private understanding or secret deal between Her Majesty’s Government and Sinn Fein that led to the statement that has been made today, that was accepted as being self-evident. It was also similarly accepted as being self-evident that there has been no weakening or dilution or adjustment in any way of any kind to the constitutional guarantee which the Government has over so many years maintained that there will be no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom except with the consent of the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland, something which is written into the Joint Declaration made between the two governments for example in December last year and it therefore follows that the greater part of the conversation centred upon the important statement made by Mr. Adams in Dublin today and there was naturally enough a welcome that after so long there is from midnight tonight to be no more murdering and bombing and maiming and violence generally; that naturally is a matter to be welcomed very much.

    However, it was equally obvious as the Prime Minister’s own statement issued shortly before one o’clock this afternoon made clear, that the word “permanent” didn’t feature in the statement that was issued by Mr. Adams and I think everybody will remember that the Irish Government, the British Government with the approval of Mr. Hume and the American Government as well has expressed its approval for this, all of them had insisted that before the entry process into the talks process could begin for Sinn Fein as an elected mandated political party there had first of all to be a permanent end to violence, a renunciation of violence and a permanent renunciation of the support for violence.

    It may very well be that that is the intention of the statement that has been issued by Mr. Adams today but it will be recalled that what he said was there had been ordered as from midnight tonight a complete cessation of military operations as they put ii. and the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon just before one o’clock drew attention to the fact that they had declared a complete cessation of violence but went on to say that it needed to be made clear that this was indeed intended to mean that it was over permanency, that is to say for good. I understand that there are some who say that if you look at the whole body of that statement issued by Mr. Adams that that is the intention but this is so important a matter that the Prime Minister and we believe that it ought not to be left at large or able to be the subject of discussion and argument and if indeed that is the intention it is surely the simplest thing in the world for it to be made clear that that is indeed the intention, that it is over for good.

    This is not just a piece of pleasantry or nit-picking about a particular word. What lies behind it is the absolute essential importance that such talks and negotiations as may take place in future shall not take place under the implied threat that violence which after all has gone on for so long could be taken up again and resumed if people didn’t behave during those discussions in a way that was congenial to the IRA.

    That is what it is about and I very much hope that it is the case that the intention is that it is over for good. The Prime Minister feels and we all feel very firmly that this is something that does have to be put beyond doubt. It is a very simple matter to do and we hope that it will take place, that it will be done very quickly whereupon the British Government naturally enough will start to put in place the time-scale that has already been made public about the approach to preliminary talks and so on.

    QUESTION:

    Can I be very clear about that last sentence you just uttered. Are you saying, therefore, that the 90-day clock cannot start to run until the IRA makes clear that it is permanent, makes that statement about permanence?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    It couldn’t possibly start to run until midnight tonight because violence is said to be at an end only from midnight tonight.

    There is plenty of time to make that clear before midnight tonight but it should be made clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    The Prime Minister has interpreted that in the statement that he issued just before lunchtime today as an end to violence, a complete cessation of violence and of course that should include violence of all kinds not just the hideous abuses that have gone in the form of bombing but things such as punishments, shootings and the like, they are all to be included.

    QUESTION:

    Is it true to say that the clock can’t start running until the IRA has specifically said that it renounces violence permanently and used the word?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    It does have to be made clear before the British Government considers that the time-scale to which it is committed in public statements and most recently the commentary that it made to the twenty questions put to it in May, it does have to be made clear first that this is intended to be, as it may very well be, a permanent ending of violence, that is to say for good. Once that is done, then that process begins.

    QUESTION:

    Have you communicated this message through any channel directly to Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Will it have to be a statement by Mr. Adams of the same nature as the statement we had earlier today and as a follow-up question can I ask you at what stage will the British Government withdraw the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    It doesn’t have to be made clear in any formal way in any particular format; it just has to be expressed in a means that leave ordinary people let alone governments satisfied that that which the two governments have said will be an essential before the talks process and entry into the talks process can begin, for it to be made clear in whatever form is sufficient to make it perfectly clear to the everyday people that that actually is what is intended to be delivered and of course, as we made clear in the commentary to the twenty questions in May, after the word there does have to follow a period of what I might call conduct, deed, behaviour, whatever you like to call it, that is consistent with the word and then within three months we are into the preliminary talks which we are committed to.

    QUESTION:

    Will the broadcasting ban go during the three months or only at the end of it?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    Everything will be considered step-by–step in the light of prevailing circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    If over the next three months the IRA fires not a single shot, sets not a single bomb, is this what the British Government intends?

    PATRICK MAYHEW:

    The British Government’s position has been made very clear long before now that once there is a permanent renunciation of the use of violence and a permanent renunciation of the justification or support for violence then within three months the British Government will be prepared to enter into preliminary discussions on three topics: how they can be brought into a democratic process; how they can ultimately come into the talks process, matters of that kind; and lastly, what are the practical consequences that would flow from such a permanent renunciation. I am not going to be led into specific detail which would be hypothetical at the most.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    The last question was do I intend to seek clarification and I said you could put it like that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared to lift the broadcasting ban so Mr. Adams can explain himself?

    SIR PATRICK MAYHEW:

    Our position is unchanged on the broadcasting ban. It is kept under continuous review in the light of changing circumstances. I don’t wish to say more than that. It doesn’t rest with me anyway, it rests with the Heritage Secretary.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Albert Reynolds – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held on Friday 15th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me just say a few words about our discussions this afternoon:

    When the Taoiseach and I first met when he first became Taoiseach in 1992, we agreed to have regular meetings and more formal biannual bilaterals. In practice, we have met very frequently during that period.

    When we met at Corfu a few weeks ago, we set in train a significant amount of work designed to complete a framework document; a lot of that work has been continuing. We took the opportunity of this unexpected summit today to meet and review that work. A substantial amount of progress has been made but there is self-evidently still some more work to do. We have commissioned some more work and we have decided that we will regroup again more formally in the early autumn – I can’t be precise as to the date at the moment – in order to carry that work forward so I would expect us to meet again in the early autumn and then again, of course, formally towards the end of the year.

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    I agree with my colleague on that. We set out a lot of work the last time we met and a lot of that work has been completed; we have achieved quite considerable progress. We have set another programme of work today, we would like to make progress again and as soon as we have the work completed we will have a summit in early autumn. We didn’t need a summit next week because we had the opportunity to complete what we would have done next week this week anyway so the unexpected summit called for Brussels today afforded us the opportunity to do our work that normally we would have had to meet next week to do.

    QUESTION:

    To what extent is the Irish constitutional claim to the North a sticking point?

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    We are in very sensitive, complex areas on both sides here. What we are trying to achieve is a new beginning not just a patch job, not just something to put a bit of sticking plaster on. We are trying to find a new beginning, a way to stop the violence on both sides and that is not achievable as quickly as some people might think but we have made very considerable progress and both of us are confident that we will achieve enough progress to hold a summit in the early autumn.

    QUESTION:

    Is that the stumbling block as far as you are concerned, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    There are a number of things that are still yet undetermined. If I look at where we are now and contemplate whether two years ago I would have imagined we would have reached the present circumstances, frankly I would not. The progress has been steady, perhaps sometimes unspectacular but it has been steady and it is continuing; that is still the case.

    There are some more things to be determined. They are very sensitive issues, very complex issues, very deep-rooted problems. We are examining them one by one and as we solve them we move on to the next one. I would rather take that gently and get it right than rush it and get it wrong. There is a very great deal at stake.

    QUESTION:

    But are you both prepared to give ground, you, Prime Minister, on the Government of Ireland Act for example and you, Taoiseach, on the constitutional claim?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think we will negotiate in private about things like that.

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    We said in our Downing Street Declaration of December 15 that we would approach a balanced constitutionalist agreement and that is what we are engaged in.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the summit in general that you are coming to? Can you tell us whether you believe that Jacques Santer is a much better choice than Jean-Luc Dehaene would have been?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes I do. We will have the summit very shortly and I very much hope we will be able to reach a conclusion. I do believe that Jacques Santer would be acceptable to the heads of most governments, all governments I hope; from our point of view, he has a number of very positive virtues and I look forward to the discussion in a few moments.

    QUESTION:

    Some people say that he is not very exciting. Do you think that matters?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think what matters is how competently and efficiently the new President is going to run the commission and take into account the interests of all the member nation states across the European Union.

    I have worked with Jacques Santer on the European Council for a number of years, I know his virtues, I know his capacity to carry matters forward and carry them forward in a balanced way. I think that is what is necessary.

    QUESTION:

    Since you met at Corfu, there has been a development in relation to the repatriation of prisoners. Are there any other such initiatives planned by you and sought by you?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    We are discussing a whole range of matters, some of them directly related to the talks we had this afternoon and other matters related to the security situation. I have said before and am happy to say again with the Taoiseach beside me that the degree of cooperation over security matters has improved beyond all measure over recent years and I think that is something that is welcome both sides of the border so there are matters like that under discussion, yes.

    QUESTION:

    Any new initiatives sought by you, Taoiseach?

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    Not specific in that manner although we do continue every time we have a meeting to look at ways and means of improving the atmosphere between the two communities and creating an environment from which we hope that violence will be taken out at some stage sooner rather than later as far as both of us are concerned but the specifics of such we always keep to ourselves.

  • PMQT – 21 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Robathan : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real concern throughout the country caused by the continuing reduction in our defence capabilities, as illustrated yesterday by the leak about the defence costs study? Can he reassure his hon. Friends that he will never allow the growth of expenditure on social security to undermine our national security?

    The Prime Minister : I can reassure my hon. Friend that the “Front Line First” programme will do nothing to reduce the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces or our ability to undertake defence commitments. I assure him that our commitment to effective front-line forces remains undiminished. The purpose of the “Front Line First” study is to ensure that money spent on defence administration and support is kept to a minimum. That is a sensible aim, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will join me in achieving it.

    Mrs. Beckett : Will the Prime Minister confirm that a member of his staff attended a crucial meeting of the Railtrack board last weekend?

    The Prime Minister : A member of my policy unit attended a meeting in Whitehall, at the invitation of the Department of Transport, in order to inform me. The negotiations are between Railtrack and the unions. As the right hon. Lady raises the question, perhaps she will now take the opportunity, at the third time of asking, to condemn the strike.

    Mrs. Beckett rose

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Mrs. Beckett rose — [Interruption.]

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

    Mrs. Beckett : I think that we can take that answer as a yes, so we now know that the Department of Transport interfered in the negotiations, although it said that it had not, and that the Prime Minister’s office meddled in the negotiations, although it said that it would not. Does not it stand out a mile that the dispute would not be happening if the negotiations had not been sabotaged by the Government?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is being ludicrous. The policy unit attends meetings throughout Whitehall, with a watching brief. It takes no part in negotiations that, as the chairman of Railtrack has made clear, are between him and the unions. However much the right hon. Lady tries, she cannot hide the fact that she will not condemn a strike that puts hundreds of thousands of commuters at risk, when hundreds of thousands of other public service workers have settled for pay increases, far below 3 per cent., which can be afforded. As ever, she is the strikers’ friend.

    Mrs. Beckett : What is completely clear is that no one wants this strike– [Interruption.] –except, perhaps, Conservative Members– least of all rail staff and commuters. Is not it crystal clear that it is happening only because the Government interfered? Yet again, the Prime Minister has caused what he now condemns. Yet again, the Government are saying one thing and doing another. Is not that why nobody can believe a word they say?

    The Prime Minister : This has happened because there is an 11 per cent. wage demand which, by implication, the right hon. Lady would accept. Even now, her condemnation is limply to say that nobody wants this strike; she will not condemn it. She would, presumably, end it by meeting the demand. She backs that extra spending. I remind her that last week, she criticised tax increases. A week later, she calls for more public spending. How would she pay for the settlement–by raising taxes, by increasing public expenditure? The hypocrisy in this case rests with the Opposition. The right hon. Lady still will not condemn the strike. To quote her, that is twice she has refused to answer on condemning the strike. Will she now condemn it, yes or no?

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 40 per cent. of those recently arrested as part of Operation Bumblebee were on bail? Does not that underline how wise our Government are in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mrs. Gillan : It will not have escaped the House that the Opposition find law and order so funny. How wise the Government were to crack down on bail bandits in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. As three out of five burglaries are committed by people who are under 21, perhaps the Opposition would care to explain why they oppose policies against juvenile offenders so consistently. Is not that proof that the Labour party is Fagin’s friend?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend has shown with the figures she has used, there is no doubt that far too many people have been abusing the right to bail. Once the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becomes law, a person who is charged with a serious offence committed on bail will lose the right to bail. That is entirely right. If that person is then convicted, the court can reflect the fact that the offence was committed while the person was on bail. Operation Bumblebee has been a huge success. It has shown that by targeting crime, one can bring it down. What is equally encouraging is that the last quarter’s crime figures show crime down by 9 per cent.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does not the atrocity in Loughinisland over the weekend prove that when it comes to evil, there is nothing to chose between the murderers on one side of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and the murderers on the other? I remind the Prime Minister, once again, that the gunmen thrive when a political vacuum exists. Will he confirm that he understands the importance, when he meets the Irish Prime Minister in Corfu on Friday, of regaining, again, the initiative for peace through political progress in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the murder of six people in Loughinisland on Saturday evening was a vicious and depraved act of brutality. Whether it is so-called Loyalists murdering Catholics or the IRA murdering Loyalists, it is equally indefensible by any possible measure. The right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for political movement and political settlement. I am in constant contact both with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I will certainly discuss the matter further with the Taoiseach when we meet over the weekend.

    Mr. Hicks : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inherent reticence and tolerance of the people of Devon and Cornwall is becoming increasingly exasperated by the inability or refusal of the Government to do anything to alleviate the growing water charges in the area? Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was 12 months ago that he personally said that he would look at this situation? When can we expect some positive news on that front?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for the Director General of the Office of Water Services to determine– [Interruption.] Opposition Members would do well to wait. It is for the Director General of Ofwat to determine the new price limits and he is in the process of doing so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has published advice on quality matters. That will assist the director general in setting new price limits. We are looking, as I have said, to see what can be done with requirements made under European Community directives to reduce the impact in the west country. We have already found and announced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) should have known, ways in which to hold down the cost of some of the directives. Other ways are still being examined.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Why does the Prime Minister permit water disconnections in England and Wales, but not in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman asking for water disconnections in Scotland?

     

    Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that since “Options for Change” was prepared, the world has become more turbulent and less certain? Bearing in mind the fact that the French, who have roughly similar international defence commitments, have recently agreed to up their defence budget, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to look at the planned defence cut of £1 billion in 1996?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, in cash, the French spend broadly the same as we do, although, of course, they have a conscript army in France as compared with the professional Army that we have in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, through the “Front Line First” defence costs study, we aim to maximise the proportion of defence resources allocated to the front line. I believe that that is the right way in which to determine our defence expenditure, unlike the Opposition, who scream “cuts”, but would halve defence expenditure and would, no doubt, if they had the opportunity, also scrap our nuclear capacity.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Michie : Is the Prime Minister aware that, next week, on 30 June, a delegation of health workers and friends, supported by Sheffield Members of Parliament, will be protesting about the closure of the Royal Hallamshire hospital accident and emergency unit in Sheffield? As this is a matter of life and death, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not wash his hands of that issue, but tell the quangos, which his Government have set up, to stop paying high salaries to bureaucrats and to pay for services for the people?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows of the increased resources that have gone into services for the people. I do not have to hand the details of the particular case that he has in mind, but I have no doubt that, now he has raised it, my right hon. Friend will examine it.

    Mr. David Howell : Reverting to the horrific killings in Northern Ireland and bearing in mind that there has been some talk lately of a return to internment, does my right hon. Friend recognise, before considering that drastic solution, that there is an opportunity for a concerted and greatly enhanced security drive and for a strengthening of legal and intelligence resources applied against terrorism? If that is done on both sides of the border–in Dublin, and in Belfast and London–we have a chance of beating the terrorism, without which there will be no political solution.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, the power of internment remains on the statute book, but would be used only in very special circumstances. Co-operation on security and intelligence matters has improved dramatically over the past few years. It is a matter of constant discussion between the British Government and the Irish Government so that we can ensure that whatever further improvements can be made will be made and precisely for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q6. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware that Scottish Tories are revolting? [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”] Led by the Scottish Office Minister responsible for industry, they are scared that percentage levels of VAT on domestic fuel will soon be higher than Tory poll ratings in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister now listen to the voices speaking in his direction? Will the message to the Prime Minister from the revolting Tories meet with any success?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that I see it as the hon. Gentleman does. As he is clearly concerned about the position in Scotland, I remind him that the figures that emerged yesterday in Scotland from Locate in Scotland, the inward investment bureau, show that Scotland attracted more inward investment in the last financial year than at any time since 1981. Ninety-five projects are planned, worth almost £600 million creating 7,700 jobs and safeguarding 3,000 others. That has happened under a Conservative Government in this country improving the quality of opportunity for people in Scotland, whatever gloss the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) may care to put on it.

  • US Background Briefing on Meeting with John Major and President Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is the text of the US background briefing held at Hartwell House on 4th June 1994.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Why don’t we begin by — we’ll talk about the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister and sort of divide up the main topics the President and the Prime Minister covered, a list of things they talked about.

    They first did a meeting that they held together before lunch with just a couple of advisors on each side. And then they extended the conversation over lunch for another 15 minutes or so with just the President and the Prime Minister and their wives. And then they came out and spoke with you.

    I guess just a couple of other issues mentioned — one is to come back to Haiti. The British government was very helpful in helping to kick off the process that led to our now having reached an agreement in principle with the Turks and Caicos to establish a migrant processing centre there. We hope within a very short time now to have worked out all of the final details on it.

    The local problem there I believe has proved — so we’re all ready to go. We would expect that it would be established by early July. We also, as I told a number of you on the plane, have reached an agreement with Jamaica for such a centre and it should be up and well started before early July.

    So we think we’re making a lot of progress there, and we are grateful to Her Majesty’s government for having supported it.

    Somebody asked me on the plane how many could be processed through, and in Jamaica, at least, we would expect it would be about 500 a day. We don’t know yet in Turks and Caicos. On Jamaica, as you’ll recall, it will be on ships. In Turks and Caicos it would be on shore.

    Ireland — the President praised the British government’s response to the questions that were put forward by Sinn Fein. The President said it remains our view that the IRA should put an end to violence and we hope that we can see progress towards a political settlement in Ireland.

    What else? On Bosnia, just one other detail. The President — there was a discussion of the role of UNPROFOR and the President expressed how important he thinks the work has been and will be in this continuing very difficult humanitarian as well as political and military crisis —

    QUESTION:

    Is it correct to construe from what the President told us earlier today that the United States government does not take the North Korean claim that sanctions would be deemed an act of war seriously? Is that correct, you do not take it seriously?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    No, I don’t think he put it quite that way.

    QUESTION:

    Well, that’s what I was asking you to —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Right. This is not the first time that the North Koreans have made statements like this. And in a situation as potentially serious as Korea, of course, one does not take such statements lightly. At the same time, they have been made before and there is no question that statements like this will not deter, intimidate the international community from proceeding at the Security Council.

    And as the President said, sanctions are not an act of war and we do not consider them to be so.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current state of play on consultations that have been going forward? Yeltsin said is that they’ll go on, sanctions is a last resort, he’d like an international conference first. Are we amenable to that? And what about the Chinese veto — do we think that they’ll at least abstain from —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, as you know, the President and Yeltsin did speak yesterday afternoon. Yeltsin laid out his ideas on an international meeting. They agreed that Secretary Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev will now be in touch with each other to discuss the issues that are involved in holding such a meeting.

    The President said that we believe that such a meeting could be useful at some point, but that the first task before us is to pursue the issue of sanctions at the Security Council. And that is what we are doing.

    As I said the other night, the Chinese have been unenthusiastic about sanctions and have said so on a number of occasions. But to our knowledge, they have not said publicly or privately that they would veto sanctions at the Security Council. Last weekend when we consulted among the Permanent Five members on what to do about Korea, the Chinese joined the consensus behind the President’s statement. And in that resolution it said that the Security Council — and these aren’t the exact words, but the Security Council would remain engaged on the issue, which implied for the consideration of issues like sanctions. So I think it would be both premature and possibly wrong to assume that the Chinese would veto. We’ll simply have to work it through with them, and we’ll be doing that.

    QUESTION:

    The President said that this is not a subject – – the President said he didn’t want to sabre-rattle on this issue, but the strategic situation in Korea is such that there is no margin for error. Will the United States quietly be doing things to increase the capabilities there in terms of air power —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I always love it when people ask me if we’re going to really do something from your side of the house. [Laughter]. No. We have been constantly reviewing what we should do prudently to make sure that we are doing everything necessary both to protect our forces in Korea and to help defend South Korea itself. And we have taken a number of measures, as you know, over the recent months, including the — most notably, the sending of the Patriots. And what I can tell you is that we will continue to review the issue as we go along.

    QUESTION:

    You were unable to or unwilling to say the other night what you thought might be or ought to be in the sanctions. Are you in anymore of a position now to say what sanctions ought to look like?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Not yet. I think we have to do a little in the way of consulting — or a good bit more, perhaps, in consulting, especially with the Japanese, South Korea — they’re being allies; the Russians and others to see what form the sanctions can most usefully take.

    There are two issues here: One is how do you design sanctions that will bring — convey the maximum amount of leverage with the North Koreans. And the other is that we have to build a consensus behind the sanctions at the Security Council and we’ve got to negotiate both at once, and we will be.

    QUESTION:

    Why is the U.S. not as enthusiastic about a conference as Yeltsin seems to be?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Clearly, the first focus has to be on the Security Council and the issue of sanctions. And it could well be that a meeting at some point can make a useful contribution there in pushing the North Koreans back towards the international community. But whether it’s a meeting like this or anything else, we want the focus to be right now on the Security Council and the pursuit of the issues.

    QUESTION:

    As a strategic matter or because of some principle having to do with not being willing to meet with them at this point?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    As a practical matter, seeking every — seeking the maximum leverage with the North Koreans that we can find to try to resolve the nuclear issue.

    QUESTION:

    So then you’d lose leverage through a conference? I mean, there’s the President stressing he wants to work this out, he wants diplomacy; and Yeltsin says there should be a conference — if that’s a good forum for that.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I think the diplomacy could take many forms. But the first issue — and we’ve been pursuing the diplomacy for some weeks now. We think we pursued it consistently and with some skill even, but it hasn’t produced the results; yes, the North Koreans have made their decision. And what clearly is need now is to convey to the North Koreans the seriousness of the choice that they have made and the importance in terms of their interests to their moving away from the path of confrontation with the international community and back towards trying to work with them.

    QUESTION:

    How can the Security Council and the United States government be sure that it doesn’t provoke North Korea into doing something that nobody bargained for with sanctions?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    We will devise sanctions that we think are both effective and — well, that are effective.

    QUESTION:

    Let me ask the question another way.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Yes, try again. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Since the President began to convey the seriousness of the situation, have you seen anything in the last 48 or 72 hours to come from the North Koreans to suggest they’re getting the message?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I don’t think we’ve seen from the North Koreans either that they’re getting the message or that they’re not. So we’ll have to see.

    QUESTION:

    The other question is, short of sanctions is there anything that can be done in terms of bilateral action among any of these countries?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, we have been talking to the Chinese, for example, both over recent weeks and even over the past week, urging them to convey to the North Koreans the seriousness of the situation and the choice the North Koreans need to be making. We hope that other governments are doing the same thing.

    And the President and other American officials have been finding opportunities to speak on the public record on the issue to convey exactly the same message to the North Koreans.

    QUESTION:

    The Chinese haven’t come back to you and said I’m getting the message, or no response from the Chinese about whether they’re —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    The Chinese are very careful to — not to tell us exactly what it is that they say to the North Koreans. They do tell us that they have been in touch with the North Koreans. If you look at recent Chinese public statements, there is no question that they are very unhappy with the position that the North Koreans are taking.

    If I can go now just off the record, because I don’t want to speak for the Chinese — but I would assume that the reason the Chinese won’t tell us what exactly they’re saying to the North Koreans is that once they tell us that then we can keep going back to them and saying, no, adjust your message this way, that way, and they lose a lot of their flexibility.

    But we, to come back on to background, we are quite confident that the Chinese have been urging the North Koreans to adopt a more constructive attitude.

    QUESTION:

    But if that’s true, how come they’re so resistant or seem so resistant to sanctions? I mean, what is it that I’m missing here? Why are they reluctant to take the step that you’re willing to take?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, because China — I think probably for two reasons: One, China is North Korea’s greatest trading power; and secondly, China has an historic relationship with North Korea that they probably find constrain them.

    I think the Chinese see here two basic interests. One is I am convinced that they do not want to see a nuclear North Korea; that they would prefer to see a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And I think that is not only because North Korea is close to China, but also because if North Korea becomes an overt nuclear power, then the pressures in the region for other states to adopt nuclear weapons would increase. I am not — I repeat, not — saying the Japanese or others necessarily would develop nuclear weapons, but there would be that pressure. And that’s not in the interests of the Chinese.

    And the second major Chinese interest here is that they don’t want to see sanctions for the reasons I just stated.

    Therefore, it is and has been in the interest of the Chinese to try to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program, thus avoiding sanctions and, thus, serving both of the Chinese interests at the same time.

    QUESTION:

    Quick one. How insistent was Yeltsin on this conference in his conversation with Clinton? Was it something that’s going to screw up his vote in the Security Council? I mean, is he looking at this as a diplomatic —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    No, he made the –I mean, clearly, he is very interested in the idea, but at the same time, if you look at the public statement he made three or four days ago, he has also been saying that in the end he believes sanctions are justified.

    QUESTION:

    Does it have to come after a conference like this?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    They would have to work out that timing. I don’t necessarily — I can’t speak for the Russian government.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you.

    QUESTION:

    Does your Government [the British Government] favour sanctions?

    BRITISH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    We believe that you can’t design an — to sanctions that would be effective in this case. And as my colleague says, it’s important to get the design right and consult on it. But we are very supportive; we’re working together with the United Nations on precisely that.

    You raised the question about provoking. If you’re worried about not provoking people, then you’d never do anything. But you’ve got to construct a path that gives them the maximum opportunity to move away from the policies and approach that they’re doing now. And we think that can be done, using all the — and we’re just available to the United Nations Security Council.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you both.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Albert Reynolds – 26 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held in London on Thursday 26th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Taoiseach and I have taken the opportunity this afternoon of running through a range of matters of mutual interest, we have spent some time of course discussing the continuing improvement in our security cooperation, we have done a certain amount of work in preparing for the summit that we will have in July.

    Both of us share a disappointment that the violence continues, both the IRA violence and the Loyalist violence, there is no shred of justification for it whatsoever. What is clear though is that the work that is going on both on improving cross-border cooperation and the constitutional discussions between the two governments are not waiting for an end of violence, they continue and they are making substantial progress.

    We were both delighted with the discussions we were able to have today, the Taoiseach may wish to say a word or two, and then we will take one or two questions.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    We had a very useful and informal meeting indeed at which the range of issues, as already listed by the Prime Minister, were discussed at length. There is one message quite clear that we want to give, and that is that neither paramilitary organisations are going to gain anything or bolster their position by a continuation of violence. It is quite clear that the next logical step if the peace process is to move forward is to have a cessation of violence and we are all waiting for that definitive decision by both the paramilitary organisations to desist from violence. There is no single vestige of justification for the loss of one single life on either side or on either community, it is not going to help their own cause and it is certainly only going to postpone the day when re-reconciliation between the two communities can take place and indeed when the progress of the political talks, which we have made quite a lot of progress at so far, will be coming into play so that all democratic parties can join the political democratic process

    QUESTION:

    Do either of you see any value in the comments from Mr Adams today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen all the details in his news conference yet so I will withhold judgement on that. As far as what he said this morning, I see nothing new in what he had to say this morning. What was quite striking was what he did not say. He made no indication this morning that he was going to give up violence and take the offer that has been open to him for some time and I think that is what people in every part of Ireland, north and south, that is what everyone wishes to hear from him. There is an opportunity for him to give up violence and then in a short while to enter the constitutional talks. Now that constitutional avenue is open to him and I do not believe any amount of talking and waiting will please anyone until such time as he says the violence can end and we can begin to talk, that is what I am waiting to hear from Mr Adams and I believe everyone else is as well.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    If they want a couple of weeks for further debate, we do not mind that as long as the cessation of violence takes place now, there should not be another single life lost, if internal debate takes another few weeks, so be it, as long as the violence stops as and from today. And I would also say that I firmly support James Molyneaux’s statement for a cessation of violence on the Loyalist Paramilitary side as well.

    QUESTION:

    Have you set a deadline for a decision from Sinn Fein and the IRA on the declaration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it is not a question of deadlines in that sense. The joint declaration stands as a set of principles that will guide both governments towards a constitutional settlement, it is not a question of saying if they have not answered by a certain date the joint declaration falls, that is not the case at all. Our discussions, the constitutional discussions between the governments and the constitutional discussions with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, they continue, and the joint declaration remains as the essential back-drop to those discussions.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, did you discuss the recent violence in Dublin and how important that is to the Irish government?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    We discussed all violence, let alone the violence in Dublin which is regrettable, but indeed all of the violence that takes place and we again repeat the message that there is nothing to be gained, there is no success for either paramilitary side going to be gained out of the continuation of violence, and another message that we want to make quite clear is that the two governments are not going to wait around or are not waiting around for any more prevarication on either side to stop the violence, we continue with our own business and it is a matter for them to make up their minds in their own time. But in the meantime, we would ask them to respect the will of the vast majority of the Irish and British people to stop the violence straight away and not have any more killing.

    QUESTION:

    Isn’t Sinn Fein just stringing you along, you say you are not waiting for them but you have been waiting for months and months since the declaration?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    That may be your view, we are not waiting around for anybody, the work continues in the Liaison Committee and between the two governments and that is why we are here today to review our progress so far and to get ourselves into a position to move forward indeed before our next meeting. It is not a question of us waiting around for Sinn Fein, both governments have been working for quite some time now on the framework document which is grounded in the Downing Street declaration where the ground rules are set, that document is here to stay whether or not Sinn Fein or anybody else supports it or otherwise.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just emphasise that point if I may. There has been a great deal of progress over the last couple of years particularly in cross-border cooperation on security matters, I very much welcome the dramatic improvements that there have been. But beyond that, the point the Taoiseach made is exactly right, there is no delay, there has been no delay and there will be no delay in the continuing discussions with the constitutional parties and with the government of the Republic of Ireland on the framework document we are producing, a great deal of progress has been made, there is more to be done, but it is not awaiting an answer from Sinn Fein.

    QUESTION:

    Is that document going to be ready for your summit in July?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no-one is going to put a deadline on it, I cannot promise you that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you agreed on what should be contained in this framework and if you are agreed why have we not seen it or heard of its completion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When we have finished it you will hear about it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been in constant discussion with them, those discussions remain, Michael Ancram is in discussion with them on a day by day basis, and gradually we are moving to a set of circumstances where we think we can reach the objective that we all seek. I do not propose to go into details of that with you this afternoon, I do not think it would be appropriate. Often these discussions are a slow and painful process, but progress is being made, and if one were to look back for example 12 months ago, I think few people would have imagined the progress that has been made over the last 12 months, yet it has been made and we are determined to take that progress still further.

    QUESTION:

    Is peace still achievable?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    Both governments are fully committed and will continue to be committed to the achievement of peace, we have not changed our mind one iota in that pursuit of peace.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I entirely agree with that.

  • PMQT – 24 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

    Dr. Wright : What does the Prime Minister say to the woman in my constituency who phoned my office the other day to thank me for taking up her husband’s case in relation to the Child Support Agency, but who said that I could close the file–the file that I have here–because her husband had just killed himself? Has not the time come when it is no longer enough to say that we all support the principle of the agency–which we do–or that it is being kept under continuing review–which it no doubt is ? Has not it become a monstrous and inhuman shambles that has to be changed and changed now?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows what I had to say about that recently. I have nothing to add to that today. On the personal circumstances that he mentioned, neither he nor I can know all the circumstances behind that tragedy. On reflection, he may think that it was unwise to raise it in that fashion.

    Sir Cranley Onslow : As the British electorate clearly cannot expect Opposition Members to spell out the full horrors of the sort of centralised and federal European Union for which they want people to vote on 9 June, will my right hon. Friend consider inviting Mr. Delors to come over here and do the job for them?

    The Prime Minister : The President of the Commission is welcome here in the United Kingdom at any time. I hope that when he comes, if he comes, he will spell out yet again that he believes that the fact that we are not part of the social chapter will make us a great magnet for external investment–I am sure that he is right about that.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister recall what his party promised the British people in its last Euro-manifesto? It included the promise that the Conservatives would not put value added tax on gas and electricity, saying :

    “We stand by that pledge; we will honour it”.

    Has not it become clear that the Government are incapable of honouring any pledge?

    The Prime Minister : It is not remotely clear. Like every Government, we have to respond to the reality of events in the interests of the people of this country. The right hon. Lady should bear in mind some of the contradictions in what she and her colleagues have said and done. On one day they attack our tax proposals and on the next day they propose a string of new taxes. They then ask for fresh expenditure, but the shadow Chancellor says that there is no commitment. There is no consistency whatsoever in any of their policies.

    Mrs. Beckett : If that is the Prime Minister’s answer to why the Government broke the promises in their last Euro-manifesto, will he explain why, at the general election in 1992, he and his party promised not to extend or increase VAT, not to increase national insurance contributions and not to impose any other taxes and charges, and even promised tax cuts year on year? Why is it that, in manifesto after manifesto, the Government make promises that they then betray?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is misquoting and misunderstanding. If she wants to talk about movements away from manifestos, she might look at the distinctions between the European socialist manifesto to which the Labour party is committed and the domestic Labour party manifesto for the European elections. She might then explain to the British people why, in this election, what it is saying domestically is not what it has agreed to internationally.

    Mrs. Beckett : Did not the Government prove at the last Euro- election and general election that they will say and do anything to get elected? The people now know that after the broken promises of the Euro- election and general election campaigns. Why should anyone trust the Government ever again?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady will also know that we made it clear that we would create the right circumstances for growth, and we have; that we would bring unemployment down, and we are ; that we would get interest rates down, and we have ; and that we would create the conditions for sustained growth without inflation, and we have.

    Only a few weeks ago, the Labour party was signing up to promises in Europe to which it dare not admit domestically in the current election. If the right hon. Lady will not admit to that, she will find that, throughout the campaign, quote after quote after quote of what the Labour party has signed up to not long ago will be brought up. The Labour party is now trying to duck, dodge and weave around those promises because it knows that the British people will not stand for its policies on Europe.

    Mr. Dykes : I thank my right hon. Friend for yesterday reminding the British public yet again that we gain enormously in real sovereignty and strength in Europe by working closely, harmoniously and positively with the other member countries.

    The Prime Minister : As I said last night in my speech, which I know that my hon. Friend will have read, our policy is to make a success of the European Community and to make sure that it regains the affection of people, not only in this country, but right across Europe. That is the policy of the Government, and I set out a range of ways in which we believe that that can and must be brought about. It is essential to the future well-being of the country that we are able to ensure not only that the European Union is accepted by the people but that it continues successfully for many years to come.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister will be aware that, for as long as he continues to hold firmly to the view that there will be no question of negotiation with the men of murder in Northern Ireland for as long as they continue with violence and unless and until they renounce it permanently, he will continue to enjoy the full support of the vast majority of this House and, I believe, the majority of the country. However, is he aware of just how much the momentum for peace in Northern Ireland is now evaporating? Does he accept that it is urgent and important that the British and Irish Governments should now put forward joint proposals based on the joint declaration through the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, if the high hopes for peace which we enjoyed at Christmas are not to be killed off by the new wave of terrorism being implemented by both sides?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman’s wish to see an end to violence. Where I would take issue with him is in his assertion that there is an evaporation of the movement toward peace in Ireland, both north and south of the border. I do not believe that that is the case, and it is not the information which comes to me.

    After what has happened in recent weeks, but one question remains to be answered : when will the IRA give up violence? There never has been any justification–now, clearly and undoubtedly, there is not a single shred of justification in anyone’s mind–for its barbaric murders. It is losing support on all sides and becoming increasingly isolated. We should stick with the joint declaration and pursue the discussions that we are having with the constitutional parties and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We should also pursue the mechanism that we have been following for the past two years, which is bringing us nearer to peace than we have been for many years.

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider what would be the impact on traditional British interests were we to forgo completely the national veto in Europe, as urged by the sell-out Liberal Democrats?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is

    Mr. Skinner : It is that lot behind me.

    The Prime Minister : Tempting though it is to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I shall respond first to my hon. Friend.

    It is inconceivable that any responsible party would wish completely to eliminate the national veto or dilute it in any way. On vital issues, it is important that that national veto remain. I shall give just one example. Had we had no national veto at Edinburgh, where we discussed future financing, under qualified majority voting we could have lost our rebate of £3 billion a year, which was so hard-fought for by my predecessor and retained in those discussions.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ainger : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

    Mr. Ainger : The Prime Minister will be aware–it is now a matter of public record–that, on 20 April, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put a direct question to the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Ainger : Is the Prime Minister aware that, on 20 April, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People instructed his civil servants to produce amendments designed to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would be talked out? Is he also aware–I am sure that he is–that, only 16 days later, the same Minister denied to the House that he gave those instructions? Will the Prime Minister now do the honourable thing and, first, apologise to the 6.5 million disabled people for the deceitful and shabby way in which they have been treated and, secondly, sack the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for misleading the House, the disabled and the country?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the direct questions is certainly not.

    The Government’s record on assisting people who are disabled is very good. We have made it perfectly clear that, over the next few months, we shall consult to try to find a Bill that will achieve assistance for disabled people, but not a Bill with a cost of £17 billion. Until and unless the Opposition say that they are prepared to impose costs of £17 billion on private industry, their attitude over the Bill is utterly and totally bogus.

    Mr. Allason : Tonight, the House will be asked to review the provisions of the prevention of terrorism order. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the abuse of the broadcasting ban, which is so widely circumvented by all the broadcasting media, should be reviewed so as to prevent known terrorists from appearing on television and having their voices dubbed by out-of-work actors from Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend feels about that matter. A number of complex matters are involved, but I will certainly discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : Why do so many people believe that foreign millionaires can queue jump their way into Britain? Can they do that because they give substantial donations to the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that the hon. Lady quite understands the immigration rules, which are very complex. If she did, she would know that for a long time–even under the last Labour Government and I believe since 1970 or before–the immigration rules have allowed people of independent means to come to the United Kingdom. That has been the position for a very long time.

    Mr. Bill Walker : During his very busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider having a wee dram to celebrate the fact that the Scotch whisky industry is now in its 500th year? Is he aware that that industry provides massive employment in Scotland, provides export earnings of £2,000 million and brings pleasure to many?

    The Prime Minister : I am more amenable to the suggestion that I might have a wee dram than I am to many that I get these days, and I would be happy to take up that suggestion. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in his congratulations to the Scotch whisky industry, which has been a huge success. It is increasing its exports of a product which is enjoyed in every part of the world.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Enniskillen – 31 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held at Enniskillen in Northern Ireland on Thursday 31st March 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It doesn’t matter who is perpetrating violence It is absolutely unforgivable. I’m deeply sorry for the three men who have been seriously injured. I haven’t yet had a detailed report on how badly injured they are, but it’s absolutely unacceptable, to the people who perpetrated this particular piece of villainy be absolutely certain of one thing. The RUC will hunt them down and when they’re caught they’ll be punished.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no idea what the motive for this might be. We have had these sort of activities for far too many years in Ireland, but I can be certain whatever the loyalists may try and do, whatever the Provisionals may try and do, it won’t stop the efforts that we’re seeking to make to provide a peace settlement and also to provide success through the three-stranded talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct but about the IRA ceasefire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m not sure when Dublin heard about it; I heard about it when it was announced and not before.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Government has said to Sinn Fein, through the Joint Declaration agreed with the Republic as well, that if Sinn Fein will renounce violence after a brief period, a 3-month period, then they can enter the constitutional talks. Now that is the only circumstances in which they are going to sit down and talk about anything that concerns them.

    QUESTION:

    Can you be optimistic about the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I can, I can. I think anyone who has been coming to Northern Ireland for many years only has to look around him to see the changes. Have a look at the change in Belfast, have a look at the change in Londonderry, have a look at the extent to which there is now employment of many people from both religions. Have a look at the changes there are in the schools. Northern Ireland has made huge progress. It has made huge progress economically; it has made some progress politically. There’s still more to be done, but, yes, I do think there’s every reason for being hopeful.

    QUESTION:

    The killing hasn’t stopped?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The killing hasn’t stopped. No, the killing hasn’t stopped, but what I think is perfectly clear is the massive public consensus across all political parties and I think across both religions against the people who kill. I think the indication of support that was the Joint Declaration is the clearest possible illustration of that and the most recent.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not all that long ago, not all that many years ago, it was a rather unusual event for the British Prime Minister to talk to the Irish Prime Minister, but it isn’t an unusual event now. The Taoiseach and I meet regularly. We speak regularly on the telephone. The Secretary of State speaks regularly to Mr Spring. I will probably be speaking to Mr Reynolds over the next day or so, over a whole series of matters.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, is there any point in you calling Sinn Fein’s bluff?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, you refer to calling Sinn Fein’s bluff. Sinn Fein’s bluff has been called. Sinn Fein have a way of giving up violence for good and entering the constitutional talks. They have had every opportunity to do it. They chose not to do it. what they do decide to do: they have these occasional ceasefires for which they expect people to be grateful. Well I have to say, saying to people “We are not going to kill you on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but you’re fair game again on Thursday” doesn’t seem to me to be likely to attract the heart and minds of the people of Northern Ireland and neither is it going to attract any single political advance of any sort either now or in the future. They had the opportunity to enter the talks; it’s laying there on the table. They know very well what the Joint Declaration says; you know it; I know it; everyone in Northern Ireland knows it and they know it. They can take that option. It’s the only one they’ve got.

    QUESTION:

    Have your learned anything from this trip?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I always learn something in Northern Ireland. There’s an unquestionable courage in Northern Ireland after the difficulties there’s been in the last 25 years. I have seen this morning in Bangor I’ve seen some of that on the main street in meeting people. I have seen it in Armagh, looking at the new Trian, which, if I may say, if you haven’t seen it I’d go and have a look at it. It’s marvellous. I have also learned it’s a very enjoyable place to come and I thoroughly [inaudible].