The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

  • PMQT – 28 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

    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. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerted campaign by Labour-controlled authorities against compulsory competitive tendering? Is he further aware that my local authority, South Ayrshire, favours direct labour organisations against the interests of small local contracting companies that have provided excellent services at low cost for a number of years? Does he agree that the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland highlighted that wasteful practice led to his being awarded the title of Parliamentarian of the Year?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wasteful behaviour of a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities. Before the Opposition complain about council tax levels, they should put their own house in order. If they did, they would be able to hold down council tax.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Red Book, the overall tax burden next year will be higher than it is this year?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. For some time, the right hon. Gentleman has been desperate to cover up the fact that living standards are rising. The Opposition have produced the most spurious attacks on tax in the past few weeks. They claim that there have been 22 new taxes over the past five years, but I can identify 25 tax reductions in the past couple of years. The right hon. Gentleman takes no account of rising incomes and people moving into higher tax brackets, so he is painting a misleading picture. We have the lowest rate of basic tax for 60 years. It was 33p and it is now 23p.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister wants to take credit for the fact that people’s earnings have increased, but they have earned that money, not the Government. Is it not curious that the Conservative party no longer wants to talk about tax? Will the Prime Minister return to the central question that I asked him? Is it or is it not right, according to his own Red Book, that the overall burden of taxation next year will be higher than it is this year? As one of his hon. Friends said, the answer can only be yes or no. Which is it?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I just said, he would have had his answer. The right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the fact that more people are working and incomes are rising. Had the Labour party presented a Budget earlier this week, taxes would have increased quite dramatically. On the one hand he accuses us of cutting expenditure and on the other hand he accuses us of putting up taxes. We have kept direct tax down and we have increased expenditure on health, the police and other important services.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps, on the third occasion, the Prime Minister will now answer the question. Because of all the taxes in the Budget–the insurance tax, the airport tax, the council tax, the fuel tax, the abolition of profit-related pay–according to his figures, the tax burden is to rise next year. It will rise not just next year but, according to the Government’s plans, the year after, the year after that and the year after that, to a level higher than under the last Labour Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question: is it true that the tax burden is to rise next year? If it is, is not the reputation of the Tories as a low tax party now dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: The more people work, the more they earn. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. If he thinks that taxes are too high, which ones would he cut? What support has he given us in cutting taxes? If he thinks that tax is too high, will he indicate that he will not proceed with the windfall tax, or a tartan tax, or a health tax or a teenage tax? How will he pay for the £30 billion-worth of promises that he has made? The plain fact of the matter is, however he huffs and puffs, people know that dogs bark, cats miaow and the Labour party puts up taxes.

    Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French lorry drivers dispute is now causing serious traffic chaos and economic hardship in Kent, particularly around the channel ports of Ramsgate and Dover? Now that the strike is going on, it may have a much wider impact on the country. Will my right hon. Friend make strong diplomatic representations to the French Government to extract a firm commitment that full and fair compensation will be paid to British lorry drivers whose livelihoods have been affected by the mindless militancy of their French counterparts?

    The Prime Minister: I am horrified by the consequences of the dispute for British drivers and companies. Claims for compensation must be met by the French authorities. We have made that point to them. I hope that, very soon this afternoon, the leader of the Labour party will make clear his condemnation of one of his own Members of the European Parliament, who has today described the striking French lorry drivers as “a shining beacon”.

    Mr. Prescott: What sort of Government is there in France?

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party asks what the Government in France are. What are the strikers and why are they being supported by Labour Members of the European Parliament? Will the deputy leader of the Labour party go down and talk to British lorry drivers and tell then that he thinks that the strikers are a shining example?

    Mr. Prescott: It is a Tory Government in France.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is the strikers’ friend now, as he always has been.

    Mr. Ashdown: I wonder why the Prime Minister and the Government do not realise why people are so fed up with all this lying about tax. Is not the central question this: does the Prime Minister really believe that the British people are so stupid that they could be tempted to vote Conservative again because he has cut their income tax by 1p, when his own figures show that he has forced their council tax up by between £40 and £60 a year?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about council tax, he might look at the council tax levied by local authorities under Liberal Democrat control. He might realise by how much their council taxes have gone up. He might remind the British public again that he is committed to increasing the standard rate of income tax. I hope that he will make that entirely clear. He is calling for more money to be given to Liberal Democrat councillors, who are

    “politically inexperienced and potentially a liability”.

    That is not what I think; it is what his party’s internal document says about its councillors.

    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his policy to barter or bargain for the restoration of an IRA ceasefire, which should never have been broken, and that Sinn Fein’s self-exclusion from the talks remains absolute, unless or until there is an unequivocal restatement of the ceasefire and the Provisionals establish over a period of time a commitment to exclusively peaceful means?

    The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of rumour and disinformation on this issue in recent weeks. The Government have had a number of exchanges with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others about the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire. We have made it absolutely clear throughout those exchanges that IRA-Sinn Fein should give up violence once and for all and commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. We have also made it clear that we cannot and we will not change our policy to bargain for a ceasefire. In order that that should be absolutely clear, we are publishing today a statement of our policy, which we sent to the hon. Member for Foyle last weekend. A copy is being placed in the Library together with a short explanatory statement.

    The talks that have been carrying on for some time are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume later in January. When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions–[Hon. Members: “This is a statement.”]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Listen to the answer to the question. These are crucial issues that concern our country.

    The Prime Minister: I must tell hon. Members that this a matter of great interest to people not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere.

    When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, we need to be able to make a credible judgment that it is lasting, and we need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. Those matters are in Sinn Fein’s hands. We are not seeking delay; we wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible, but if Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself, the talks must and will go on without it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister sanction the Tory party campaign on “Honest John”? If so, does he agree that it is designed to deceive the public over tax? When are posters going to go up saying that the Prime Minister promised not to increase VAT, a promise that he broke; and that he promised not to increase taxation year in, year out–another promise that he broke? Is not the reality that nobody believes “Honest John”?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to our posters that indicate that we now have lower income tax, higher living standards and lower unemployment, and that that has come about directly as a result of policies that we have followed over the past few years as the Government. I am glad that he draws attention to those advertisements. I hope that everybody will see them.

     

    Q3. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Sheffield city councillors have increased their council allowance by 200 per cent., that Sheffield city council spends £350 per pupil on education administration, whereas other metropolitan authorities spend only £250, and that Labour Members of Parliament get free accommodation from Sheffield city council? Is he also aware that Silverdale school in my constituency, which is in need of urgent repair, has been informed that there is no money for such repairs? Does not that show how Labour runs Sheffield city council and how it would run the country?

    The Prime Minister: The more Opposition Members barracked my hon. Friend, the more it was clear that he had hit a bull’s-eye by pointing out the way the Labour party behaves in local government. He mentioned Sheffield. Certainly it is one of the councils that have failed to collect millions of pounds of council tax.

    Mr. Prescott: What about Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Westminster–but he neglects to mention Southwark, Leeds, Newham, Camden, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Lambeth, all of them Labour councils over many years or dominant Labour under no overall control. What is it they say about Labour?

    “New Labour in local government offers excellence and efficiency.”

    Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

     

    Q4. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Barnes: As a matter of statistical integrity, will the Prime Minister confirm what he sought to avoid in answering my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition–that page 88 of the Red Book, which deals with total taxation and national insurance contributions, shows that there is an increase year by year over the next five years in the amount that will be paid out as a percentage of gross domestic product? Will he be honest?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members earlier, that is the impact of more people working and being paid more, and of fiscal drag. Those are the facts that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The reality is that people have more net income in their hands than they have had at any time in the past, and living standards are rising. However he tries to muffle reality, he cannot hide from that fact.

  • Government Statement on Northern Ireland – 27 November 1996

    Below is the text of the Government Statement on Northern Ireland, issued by 10 Downing Street on 27th November 1996.

    GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON NORTHERN IRELAND:

    The Government wishes to set out the facts about recent contacts with John Hume and explain its position on the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire.

    Mr. Hume has suggested to the Prime Minister over the last few months that a new IRA ceasefire, which would in his view this time become permanent, is available if the Government clarifies its position on various issues, including the nature of the Belfast talks, decommissioning and possible future confidence-building measures.

    The Prime Minister has consistently made clear the Government’s position that we would welcome a new ceasefire but that we are sceptical about how credible it would be. The Prime Minister has also said from the start that there could be no question of changing our policy, or negotiating with Sinn Fein, to achieve a new ceasefire, which should be declared without further prevarication. However, he has added that he was prepared to re-state existing policy if that would help.

    The Prime Minister accordingly gave Mr. Hume in July the terms of a possible re-statement. Mr. Hume subsequently suggested different forms of words which did not, however, properly reflect the Government’s position. The Prime Minister sent Mr. Hume a further text on 23 November. This text included our views, in the light of continuing IRA attacks, notably on the Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn, on the terms and process of entry to apply after any restored IRA ceasefire.

    This British Government text is attached. It describes a position which we believe to be fair, balanced and reasonable.

    If Sinn Fein want to join the talks, it is for the IRA to declare a restoration of their ceasefire in terms which are convincingly unequivocal, indicate the intention that this ceasefire should be lasting, and reflect commitment to exclusively peaceful means. The fulfilment of paragraph 8 of Command Paper 3232 is directly relevant to this (“parties … which … establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process”). If this was followed by the absence of paramilitary activity, including such confidence-building factors as no targeting, surveillance and weapons preparation, the way would be open for the Secretary of State to invite Sinn Fein to participate in the negotiations on an equal basis with other parties, in accordance with the legislation setting up the talks.

    The talks are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume in January at a date yet to be agreed. The statement attached does not determine how early Sinn Fein can join the talks after a ceasefire. That depends on the words and deeds of the IRA and Sinn Fein. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire and to make a credible judgement that it is lasting. We need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. The Government is not erecting new hurdles or seeking delay. We wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible.

    But if Sinn Fein continue to exclude themselves from the talks, the talks must of course go on without them.

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT POLICY ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND TALKS

    This Government has made clear its approach to the search for peace in Northern Ireland on many occasions. But we continue to be asked about this or that aspect, particularly about the multi-party negotiations which started on 10 June in Belfast. There has been continued speculation about a new IRA ceasefire, despite the no-warning attack on Thiepval barracks, Lisburn and various arms finds, including the huge find in London. This has renewed questions about what effect this would have on the negotiations, and our approach to these negotiations. It may therefore be helpful to spell out our position again.

    The purpose of the negotiations is to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands. The negotiations have one overriding aim: to reach an overall political settlement, achieved through agreement and founded on consent.

    They will therefore address all the issues relevant to a settlement. Inclusive in nature, they involve both the British and Irish Governments and all the relevant political parties with the necessary democratic mandate and commitment to exclusively peaceful methods.

    It is important to emphasise that all parties are treated equally in the negotiations, in accordance with the scale of their democratic mandate and the need for sufficient consensus. But no one party can prevent the negotiations continuing by withdrawing from them. No party has an undemocratic advantage. Both Governments intend that the outcome of these negotiations will be submitted for democratic ratification through referendums, North and South.

    The prospects for success in these negotiations will obviously be much greater if they take place in a peaceful environment. The loyalist ceasefire has made an important contribution. It made it possible for the loyalist parties to join the negotiations. They are now playing their part in shaping Northern Ireland’s future, as I have acknowledged by meeting their leaders.

    The British and Irish Governments agree that, beyond the unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, these negotiations are without preconditions. But in the light of the breaking of the ceasefire and the events since then, assurances are obviously needed that any new ceasefire would be intended to be genuinely unequivocal, i.e., lasting and not simply a tactical device. Consistent with this, the process set out below would follow the declaration by the IRA of an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire with the stated purpose of the conflict being permanently ended.

    The successful conclusion of this process would depend on whether words, actions and all the circumstances were consistent with a lasting ceasefire. For example, how far the declaration of a new ceasefire was convincingly unequivocal and intended to be lasting would be an important indicator. Whether or not any paramilitary activity, including surveillance, targeting and weapons preparation, continued would also be directly relevant. Developments which were inconsistent with an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire or Sinn Fein’s commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence would affect consideration adversely. Sufficient time would have to be taken to ensure the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Command Paper 3232 were accordingly met before Sinn Fein were invited to participate in negotiations.

    We envisage that the process would involve:

    – meetings with Sinn Fein at various levels to explore with them what assurances could be given and what confidence-building measures established;

    – the British and Irish Governments would invite Sinn Fein to meet them together for the purpose of making an early total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and nonviolence;

    – the two Governments would then propose bilateral and other consultations with all the parties to seek to determine how, if this process were successfully concluded, the negotiations could most constructively be advanced, including the issue of the participants adopting an agreed indicative timeframe for taking stock of their progress;

    – following a successful conclusion of the process set out above, including due time for consideration, the two Governments would expect the independent chairmen to convene a plenary session for all participants, with Sinn Fein invited formally to participate, to consider the outcome of these consultations and the future programme of work.

    From their entry into negotiations onwards, Sinn Fein would, in common with all the other participants, be subject to all the agreed provisions and rules of procedure. These include those governing the contingency where any participant is no longer entitled to participate on the grounds that they have demonstrably dishonoured the principles of democracy and non-violence.

    The range of issues on which an overall agreement will depend means that the negotiations will be on the basis of a comprehensive agenda. This will be adopted by agreement. Each participant will be able to raise any significant issue of concern to them, and to receive a fair hearing for those concerns, without this being subject to the veto of any other party. Any aspect can be raised, including constitutional issues and any other matter which any party considers relevant. No negotiated outcome is either predetermined or excluded in advance or limited by anything other than the need for agreement.

    Among the crucial issues is decommissioning. So the opening plenary is addressing the International Body’s proposals on decommissioning of illegal arms. In their report, the International Body said the parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations. We and the Irish Government support this compromise approach. Agreement needs to be reached on how to take it forward, so that the process of decommissioning is not seen as a block to progress in the negotiations, but can be used to build confidence one step at a time during them. So both Governments have already said they will be looking for the commitment of all participants to work constructively during the negotiations to implement all aspects of the International Body’s report.

    It is essential that all participants negotiate in good faith, seriously address all areas of the agreed agenda and make every effort to reach a comprehensive agreement. For their part, the two Governments are committed to ensure that all items on the comprehensive agenda are fully addressed. They will do so themselves with a view to overcoming any obstacles which may arise.

    For our part, we are wholly committed to upholding our responsibility to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement over a period through the negotiations.

    This must be based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions. We want to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement.

    We are also determined to see these negotiations through successfully, as speedily as possible. This is in line with the hopes and aspirations of people in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. These have already given momentum to a process which will always have difficulties. We will encourage the adoption by the participants of an agreed indicative timeframe for the conduct of the negotiations and, if it would be helpful, will bring forward proposals for this. We have already proposed that a plenary meeting should be held in December to take stock of progress in the negotiations as a whole. The two Governments will also review progress at regular intervals. I will be meeting the Taoiseach on 9 December and the Secretary of State regularly meets the Tanaiste. Progress will be reviewed again by the end of May 1997, a date set in the legislation.

    Meanwhile we are committed to raising confidence, both through the talks and through a range of other measures alongside them. The International Body’s report itself proposes a process of mutual confidence-building.

    So we will continue to pursue social and economic policies based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equity of treatment and parity of esteem irrespective of political, cultural or religious affiliation or gender. We support, with equal respect, the varied cultural traditions of both communities. We are also committed to developing policing arrangements so that the police service should enjoy the support of the entire community.

    It is worth recalling that, in response to the ceasefires of Autumn 1994 and the changed level of threat, we undertook a series of confidence-building measures.

    These included changed arrangements for release of prisoners in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, security force redeployments, a review of emergency legislation and others. If the threat reduces again, the opportunity for further confidence-building measures returns.

    But confidence-building is a two-way street. Support for the use of violence is incompatible with participation in the democratic process. An end to punishment beatings and other paramilitary activities, including surveillance and targeting, would demonstrate real commitment to peaceful methods and help build trust.

    The opportunity for progress has never been greater. The process of peace and reconciliation has received valuable economic support from the United States, the European Union and through the International Fund. The negotiations are widely supported internationally and benefit from independent chairmen from the USA, Canada and Finland. They also have the overwhelming support of the people throughout these islands. They want them to take place in a peaceful environment, free of all violence. That is our aim too.

  • PMQT – 26 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

    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. Wray: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government took £7.2 billion in tobacco duties last year? Is he also aware that the Health Education Authority says that tobacco costs the health service £680 million and 110,000 deaths annually? I know that the Government are against litigation by the Department of Health, but does the Prime Minister agree that a further ban on tobacco advertising is needed?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have shown the dangers of tobacco in many advertising campaigns and also, of course, on every packet of cigarettes. That is an appropriate way to indicate the dangers–together, of course, with the disincentive of the taxation on tobacco.

    Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the cash flow crisis that is affecting so many lorry drivers, many of whom come from small firms or are self-employed? Their problems are due entirely to the failure of the French Government to keep their highways clear. As a practical measure, will he consider asking the banks to be patient with those firms? Will he also do everything that he can to the French Government to ensure that they act responsibly?

    The Prime Minister: I am concerned about the consequences for British drivers and companies of the dispute, which is, of course, in France and has nothing to do with them or their customers. We have indicated to the French Government that we expect compensation claims for loss of earnings or for damage to perishable stock to be met. I hope that they respond to that plea. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already written to his French opposite number calling for an end to the dispute and making the point about necessary compensation. I shall not hesitate to raise the matter elsewhere if necessary.

    Mr. Blair: Given that the Prime Minister fought the last general election on the specific pledge that he would cut taxes every year, will he now at least apologise for the fact that, whatever the Chancellor does today, after 22 Conservative tax rises, the average British family will pay more in tax at the time of the next election than it did at the last, and that his promise was broken?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confused. As he will know, we now have the lowest basic rate of income tax for 50 years. Even before today’s Budget, the average family will be £700 better off this year, after tax and inflation, than it was at the general election. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about transparency in tax matters and tax promises, perhaps he will publish his own tax plans, which his deputy leader said it would be stupid to do.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps, then, the Prime Minister would answer an even simpler question, as he could not answer that one: does he recall promising before the election that he would not raise national insurance contributions, and then raising them after the election? Does he recall that–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows the reductions that we have made in tax. Whatever he may seek to do, he cannot deny that taxes are lower today than they have been in the past, that they are lower than they would be under any Labour Government, and that, if he were to begin to meet the spending pledges that he made at his party conference and then sought to deny, taxation in the United Kingdom would rise and rise again were he ever to have any responsibility for the Exchequer.

    Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the first two questions, perhaps he will answer this one: does he recall going into the last election saying that he would not put VAT on fuel and power and then doing just that? Will he answer–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss value added tax, perhaps he will tell us why he can make promises on VAT, but he cannot tell us about the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the London tax, the teenage tax, his spending promises, his taxation promises or anything that is relevant to the management of the economy.

    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, in the most welcome statement yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in respect of one of the regulations that he would be most reluctant to contemplate using the veto? Bearing in mind that the Dublin summit will be a European Council meeting and not a meeting of the Council of Ministers and that the scrutiny reserved will be applied to the Economic and Finance Council meeting, does my right hon. Friend agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his reluctance to veto one of those regulations?

    The Prime Minister: Presumably my hon. Friend is referring to recital 13. If he would care to look at what was said yesterday, he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he would reiterate to the meeting of Finance Ministers that there was no legal basis on which countries not participating in the single currency could have sanctions imposed on them. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he would seek the best possible language to ensure that that understanding was copper-bottomed.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Pearson: Will the Prime Minister confirm that cutting VAT on domestic fuel and power will help every household in Dudley and nationally, while scrapping inheritance tax and capital gains tax will benefit, at most, 3 per cent. of the population? Why does the Prime Minister persist in supporting policies that favour the few instead of the many?

    The Prime Minister: The policies that we have followed have produced the best economic circumstances for generations, and that will help the many and encourage domestic investment, inward investment, job creation and growth–all of which are happening in Britain in a way that the hon. Gentleman cannot demonstrate as happening in any other European country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report by the International Labour Organisation that was published today? It shows that, in every other country, unemployment is rising, while in Britain, exceptionally, it is falling? Is that not further evidence of the merits of the Government’s economic policy that has made Britain such a success? Was not Baroness Thatcher quite right last week when she said in a speech, “Don’t let Labour ruin it”?

    The Prime Minister: When the news is improving, unemployment is falling and the economy is growing, as it is at the moment, there is very little for the Opposition to say: they hate good news, because they know that it is extremely bad news for them. They did not help to bring about the strongest economy of any western European country, which is what we have; they did not help to get more people in work, which is what we have done through the labour reforms that we have produced; they did not help to make this the No. 1 country for inward investment anywhere in western Europe; and they did not help to create the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. My hon. Friend is right, as was my right hon. and noble Friend last week–Labour is still not fit to govern and I doubt that it will be in a position to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Heppell: In view of the Prime Minister’s completely unsatisfactory response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask him again why he promised tax cuts before the last election and subsequently broke that promise?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may recall the urgings of his Front Benchers and our determination to protect people during the recession. I make no apology for the fact that we sought to protect people during the recession; I make no apology for the fact that, by doing so, we have delivered the best economic circumstances that he can ever remember. If he wants transparency in tax matters, I challenge him to publish his own party’s tax plans, about which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said it would be stupid to let the public hear.

    Mr. Couchman: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) about the lorry drivers’ strike in France, has my right hon. Friend contacted the European Traffic Commissioner? If so, did he find him conscious of the plight of British drivers, or was the European Commissioner too busy studying leaked documents from the Treasury?

    The Prime Minister: I have not contacted the European Commissioner, but I understand that he has made representations to the French expressing concern about the drivers’ welfare.

     

    Jobseeker’s Allowance

    Q5. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit a jobcentre to discuss the operation of the jobseeker’s allowance.

    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Corbyn: The Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for not being prepared to go along to a jobcentre to discuss the introduction of the jobseeker’s allowance, which is having a very serious effect on many people, especially because of the parallel introduction of incapacity benefit; many disabled people who have to face an all work test will lose their benefits altogether and will have to try to get unemployment benefit through the jobseeker’s allowance. When the Prime Minister visits a jobcentre, will he consider that point and what he intends to do for the 220,000 disabled people who next year will apply under the jobseeker’s allowance for unemployment benefit, but will probably lose it and end up destitute as a result?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and I think that he knows he is doing so. The purpose of the jobseeker’s allowance, as he should know, is to help people to plan the most effective route back into work. It creates a better framework of advice and support for the jobseeker and ensures that claimants better understand that benefit is dependent on the activities that they undertake to look for work. I believe that that principle is well understood and well supported across the country.

    The jobseeker’s allowance is also, of course, underpinned by the jobseeker’s agreement, which sets out what each jobseeker agrees to do to find work. That is infinitely preferable to the old system of unemployment benefit and income support, which was confusing and in many ways unfair.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall in the House of Commons next week to highlight the tremendous achievements of our engineering and manufacturing industry in this country? Does he agree that engineering offers attractive career prospects for our young people and will he pay tribute to those who are working to promote the achievements of the engineering industry through the Year of Engineering Success campaign next year?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hear about the exhibition that my hon. Friend mentions. I certainly agree with his sentiments; they were a key aspect of the competitiveness White Paper a short while ago and the reason we launched the action for engineering programme, to increase engineering’s contribution to the national economy. There are now about 150,000 more people employed in manufacturing than three years ago. That reverses a long-term trend and is very welcome. In addition, some 40,000 to 50,000 people are on modern apprenticeship schemes. I agree entirely that engineering is an important part of the British economy.

     

    Q7. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Prime Minister noticed the change in emphasis between the hard man and soft man of IRA-Sinn Fein? Martin McGuinness is now promising to move heaven and earth–I know that he has tried to move earth in the past, but I do not believe that he has any influence in heaven–and Mitchell McLaughlin is now threatening lethal consequences, if the Prime Minister does not come up with terms. Will the Prime Minister speak on behalf of the nation and say that we are not prepared to bow to the threats of terrorists?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows and as the House wholly accepts, IRA terrorism is utterly unacceptable for any purpose, at any time, in any place. It is also completely counter-productive if there is any suggestion that terrorism will bring Sinn Fein to the negotiating table. It emphatically will not bring it to the negotiating table. If I may quote what the Taoiseach said recently–with which I entirely agree–

    “If Republicans are committed to peace, as they say they are, let them call a ceasefire now and make it a credible one”.

  • PMQT – 21 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report in today’s issue of The Independent which states that, yesterday, three members of the IRA’s Army council were brought to the House of Commons by Labour Members? Is he aware that one of them was allowed to wander around for 20 minutes unaccompanied? Will he please instigate an immediate investigation?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has written to Madam Speaker about the incident. My understanding is that those representatives of Sinn Fein were invited to the House to meet a number of hon. Members, that no prior notification about the meeting was given and that the representatives were, from time to time, left unattended. I do not know what the outcome of the inquiry will be, but I think that it is stunning naivety on the part of any hon. Member not to realise the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA.

    Mr. Blair: In view of the extraordinary importance of the European reports on a single currency–matters that may be decided by Ministers in December–does the Prime Minister not agree, on reflection, that it would be monstrous to deny hon. Members a chance to debate the reports in full on the Floor of the House, especially as that was the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation? Does he not agree that a general debate on European matters prior to the Dublin summit is no adequate substitute?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right about the last point. There was detailed scrutiny in the Standing Committee, and in due course we shall table the appropriate motion. No final decisions are made at the meeting of Finance Ministers; that will be a matter, if appropriate, for the European summit in Dublin. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, and as my right hon. Friend the Lord President has made clear, the House invariably has an opportunity to have a full debate before such a summit, and there will be a full debate–in which this matter will be relevant–before the Dublin European summit.

    Mr. Blair: Those explanations were specifically and unanimously rejected by the Select Committee. May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has actually written that decisions may be made over the next few weeks? In any event, surely we would be failing in our duty if we did not debate these matters properly in the House. Would the Prime Minister not be a good deal more honest if he simply stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he was afraid to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand and debate the issues? That speaks volumes about the disarray of his Government.

    The Prime Minister: Anyone who thinks that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not willing, able and confident to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone, on any subject at any time simply does not know my right hon. and learned Friend. I repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago: no decisions will be made at the Economic and Finance Council meeting. The matter will come forward to the Heads of Government meeting in Dublin. If decisions are to be taken, they will be taken there, and not even that is certain. In any event, this issue and other issues will be the subject of a full debate before Dublin.

    Mr. Blair: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is in contradiction to the letter from the Chancellor to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but if the Chancellor is indeed happy and prepared to debate these issues, let us have the debate. There can be no possible reason for not debating these questions. How can the Prime Minister be trusted with Britain’s future in Europe when the internal party management of the Conservative party–because that is what it is about–always takes precedence over the interests of Britain or even, as here, British democracy? If he is not afraid of the debate, let him call one.

    The Prime Minister: This is the right hon. Gentleman who once wanted to leave the European Union. This is the right hon. Gentleman who said, “I will never be isolated in Europe.” If he is never prepared to be isolated in Europe, he could not possibly defend the British interest in Europe. We are prepared to be isolated where necessary. We do defend the British interest. It will be debated in the House and I will defend the British interest at Dublin.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yesterday in European Standing Committee B, which I attended, there was no proper scrutiny of these important regulations, which affect the powers of the House. We were discussing the so-called stability pact, whereby important decisions about the British economy would be transferred from Britain to Frankfurt and Brussels. As my right hon. Friend himself has not made up his mind about whether Britain should join the single European currency, why should the House agree now to these regulations?

    The Prime Minister: These regulations, were they to be approved in due course, would apply only to those countries that enter into a single currency–[Hon. Members: “No.”] Yes. It is no good saying, “No.” That is the fact of the matter. Whether Britain enters a single currency will certainly be determined in the House and it would then be determined in a full referendum of this country.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is simply running away on this issue and the whole country knows it.

    The Audit Commission said today that we are now less effective on tackling youth crime than we were 10 years ago, that, of the 7 million youth crimes committed in Britain every year, only about one in 10 reach court and that the Government’s programmes are ineffective, inefficient and wasteful. Given the fact that the Government have been in power for 17 years, whom do they blame for that?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to read the Audit Commission report in full. He will find that it endorses our strategy for intervening early with young people who might offend. I look forward to his support for the Green Paper, which he knows is coming forward. I hope that he will consider it. I hope that he will support it and I hope that he will, for once, have some proactive and worthwhile ideas to contribute to the debate.

    Dame Jill Knight: Since today’s press shows that Labour’s answer to the question, “When is a pledge not a pledge?” is “When it is a commitment,” will my right hon. Friend assure the House–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard. I want to hear her question. She is usually in order and I bet that she is going to be in order now.

    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give the House and its Members the pledge that he will continue to speak clearly and without ambiguity as to his plans for this country?

    The Prime Minister: I find it extraordinary that 89 spending promises suddenly disappear, apparently overnight. The Opposition claim that what we said yesterday was untrue–I think “lies” was the word that they used–but, as we were quoting what they said, I wonder who the deceivers really were.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Banks: Does the Prime Minister recall his promise–indeed, his pledge–to construct a classless society in this country? If he really meant that, why is he so set against the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to scrap the right of hereditary dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and lords to speak and vote in the House of Lords? Could it just be that the boy from Brixton, whom I remember, has got a feeling to make himself into a nob after he leaves here? Does he really want to be remembered as the nob from Brixton?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the future Lord Banks will reconsider what he has said about that matter. My remarks about a classless society were about equality of opportunity, and not about the grey uniformity that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see in this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Lidington: May I ask my right hon. Friend to order an urgent Government study into the recent report from Goldman Sachs which suggested that every household in Aylesbury would pay an additional £70 a year for its electricity alone if a windfall tax on the utilities were introduced? Those households would also face higher charges for gas and water and for the use of the telephone. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that such a tax would hit hardest at pensioners and people on low incomes–all those whom the Labour party pretends that it cares about?

    The Prime Minister: It may be that we will find, yet again, that the windfall tax is another promise that is not. Perhaps we will find that out this afternoon.

    What we do not know about the windfall tax is substantially more than what we know about it. We do not know who will pay it; what rate it would be levied at; and whom it would impact upon. We do not know why some utility chairmen think that they would not have to pay it. We do not know how much it would provide for the promises, mounting up to £30 billion, that the Labour party has made. I hope that we will get some of those answers this afternoon, but I doubt it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. McAllion: Although I regret the Prime Minister’s decision to duck a debate on the single currency, I warmly welcome his courageous decision to sponsor this afternoon’s debate on the privatised utilities and the Tory party’s links with the bosses of those companies that have made obscene profits on the backs of the rest of us. Can he confirm that many of those companies have made large donations to the Tory party and have provided top jobs for ex-Tory Ministers? This afternoon’s debate will allow the House to expose the Tories for what they really are–the political wing of the privatised utilities.

    The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise the question of the Leader of the Opposition’s secret fund. I wonder whether we will hear which business men fund it; we certainly have not heard that yet. We were told by the Opposition spokesman that the fund has been set up as a blind trust to ensure that there is no linkage between donations and political influence. There were no names given, and nothing about the openness that the Opposition promised us some time ago. Because of a newspaper examination, all we have is the fact that the fund exists, and I hear that the deputy Leader of the Opposition has a research fund as well.

    One minute, the Opposition attack share options; the next, they accept money from the millionaires who benefited from them. They attack successful business men and then host fund-raising dinners for those successful business men. They then call for openness in funding, but have a secret fund themselves. I wonder what the parliamentary word is for that behaviour.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Barnet council recently voted to have its refuse collection done by the direct labour department despite the fact that an outside tender would have saved £500,000 over the length of the contract? Does he agree that that shows that Labour and Liberal councillors are more interested in jobs for the boys than in value for money for the ratepayers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take action to see that Barnet ratepayers are protected against dogmatic socialist policy?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what my hon. Friend had to say. It is no secret that the Labour party is hostile to competitive tendering, even though it saves money for the council tax payer–a fact which is an irrelevance to Labour. As the deputy leader of the Labour party once said,

    “Society should tolerate relative inefficiency in labour intensive sectors”.

    In other words: jobs for the boys, not savings for the council tax payer.

     

    Q6. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Hain: How much will the Prime Minister’s proposal to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax cost the average taxpayer? Will he tell us whether that is a pledge, a policy, an aim, an aspiration–or merely another Tory tax lie?

    The Prime Minister: As I have frequently told the House, we are pledged to abolish, as affordable, capital gains tax. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. Such action will create jobs and stimulate employment, which is what I am determined to achieve in this country. The hon. Gentleman might like to create unemployment with extra social costs, but I wish to price people back into jobs by generating investment.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.

    Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.

    National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.

    In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.

    My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.

    Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.

    My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.

    Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.

    Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

    The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.

    A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.

    My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.

    A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.

    Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.

    Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.

    In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.

    My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference speech made on 11th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, we’ve had a good week.

    It’s been the week the Tory family came together – to renew the family contract with the British nation.

    And through the week, colleague after colleague has set out fresh, detailed, new policy for the future.

    There’ve been some marvellous speeches.

    It’s been 21 years since Michael Heseltine first got a standing ovation at this conference. And no one has sat down since.

    The well-being of our country is more important than any political party.

    And the well-being of the Conservative Party is more important than any member of it.

    So the lesson is clear. Everyone in the Conservative Party should work – and if I know them, will work – heart and soul, irrespective of personal interests, to secure the re-election of a Conservative Government.

    Over the last two or three years there’s been attempt after attempt – by our opponents – to sully the reputation of our Party.

    Well, I know this party.

    No doubt it’s not perfect – nor is everyone in it.

    But I grew up in it.

    And that campaign won’t succeed.

    Because this Party as a whole is straight and honourable and true and – like you – I’m proud to be a member of it.

    Unlike Labour, we aren’t ashamed of our past.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t abandoned our principles.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t had to reinvent ourselves. We’re proud of what we’ve achieved.

    Because, Madam Chairman, we’ve changed Britain – for the better.

    ENTERPRISE CENTRE OF EUROPE

    When I became Prime Minister, I set out to make Britain a low inflation economy.

    I knew what a fight it would be.

    But we went for it. We took the flak.

    No weakening. Heads down. We did what we always do when we’re challenged: we came out fighting.

    And, as a result, we’ve had the longest run of low inflation this country has seen for a generation.

    I want to thank my colleagues – and you – my party – for standing with me through that battle. Between us, we’ve transformed the prospects for our country.

    And we did it with raw political gut.

    We set out to create jobs. And we’re succeeding.

    Unemployment is lower here than in any comparable country in Europe.

    In Britain it’s falling.

    In Europe it’s not.

    Last year, this year, and next year we’re set to have higher growth here, in our country, than any big country in Europe.

    Curiously enough, the Labour leader didn’t mention these successes in his flight of fancy last week.

    Pages missing perhaps?

    He just said the country was falling apart.

    Inflation down.

    Mortgages down.

    Unemployment down.

    Some fall.

    Of course, there was a time when this country was falling apart. It was when we had a Labour Government.

    So I’ve got some friendly advice for Mr Blair. If you knock your country, you’ll never lead it.

    The plain truth is I’m the first Prime Minister for generations who can say “We’re the most competitive economy in Europe”.

    And I intend to be the Prime Minister who builds on that success after we’ve won the next General Election.

    Madam Chairman, at that election there’s a central question. It’s this: who can be trusted with the future?

    Labour try to persuade people it’s them.

    “We’re different” they say. “We’ve changed our name”.

    “Rely on us – you know we’ve always been wrong in the past”.

    Well, that’s candid – if a touch eccentric.

    Trouble is, they’re wrong in the present as well.

    And it simply won’t do for Mr Blair to say, “Look, I’m not a Socialist anymore. Now, can I be Prime Minister please?”.

    Sorry Tony. Job’s taken.

    And anyway, it’s too big a task for your first real job.

    Mr Blair’s handlers are trying to spread the tale that he’s a very fierce dog indeed. Indeed, but also that he’s quite harmless.

    Another eccentric messages, “Fierce dog – no teeth!”.

    By the way, have you noticed how the less a politician has to say, the more over-heated the language in which he says it?

    When every aim becomes – “a crusade”.

    Every hope – “a dream”.

    Every priority – “a passion”.

    Then it’s time to duck from cover.

    And when the whole show is laced with words like “tragedy”, “catastrophe”, “triumph” and “destiny” – terms with real meaning, but which, ransacked for political advantage, degrade the message – then I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.

    BELIEFS

    Madam Chairman, I came into politics to open doors, not shut them.

    They were opened for me.

    I was born in the war.

    My father was 66. My mother was – how shall I put it? Surprised.

    We were like millions of others. Not well off, but comfortable, until financially the roof fell in.

    Nothing special about that.

    But for us, it changed our life.

    My mother coped – as women do.

    I left school at 16, because 5 pounds a week mattered.

    I learnt something from that experience. In the game of life, we Tories should even up the rules.

    Give people opportunity and choice, to open up an avenue of hope in their lives.

    And by “people”, I don’t mean “some people”. I mean everyone.

    Opportunity for all.

    It’s in the bloodstream of our party.

    It was Shaftesbury who gave an education to thousands of children from poor homes.

    It was Disraeli who gave many working men the freedom to vote.

    It was Salisbury who brought free education within the reach of almost every family in England.

    All Tories.

    And it was Margaret Thatcher – another Tory, as you may know, who sold council houses and public industries, giving people a real stake in this country.

    Giving people opportunity marks the great divide in British politics.

    In its heart, Old Labour, New Labour, any old Labour still believe that Government knows best.

    I don’t.

    But then, I’m a Conservative.

    I believe we should give families opportunity and choice and a wider, warmer view of life.

    Our belief in choice is the driving force of our policy – its not a political ploy; for me it’s the core of what I believe in.

    EDUCATION

    I start with education.

    There are millions of children in our country. All unique. Everyone an original: different skills, different talents, different needs.

    Should each child – with all his or her originality – be made to fit into a regimented education system?

    Or should we design an education system to fit the originality of the child?

    We of course we should.

    So our task is to provide a rich choice of schools and colleges, giving the best to every child and demanding the best of every child.

    And who should choose the right schools for those children?

    The Government?

    The bureaucrat in Whitehall?

    The councillor in the Town Hall?

    Or the parents, who love and care for those children?

    Of course it’s the parents.

    Wherever possible, they should choose.

    We’re improving that choice every year.

    And we intend to widen it further.

    So, I make this promise:

    If parents want more grant-maintained schools – they shall have them.

    More specialist schools – we’ll provide them.

    More selection – they’ll have it. Why should government say “no” if parents think it’s right for their children?

    And if parents want grammar schools in every town – so do I, and they shall have them.

    We grammar school boys – and girls, Gillian – believe in choice for parents.

    That means parents shouldn’t face a choice between one bad school and another.

    What kind of choice is that?

    I’ll tell you.

    It’s the kind of choice you get in Islington – unless you move out of the borough.

    We’re going to change that. That’s why this autumn, as Gill Shepherd told you, we’ll turn today’s promises into tomorrow’s reality with a flagship Education Bill.

    We want high standards in every school.

    It’s why we set up the National Curriculum. It’s why we insist on tests.

    Without tests, how can you know what a child hasn’t learned?

    And how can parents be sure how well their children – of their school – are doing?

    When we insisted on giving that information to parents, John Prescott called it “Political Propaganda”.

    Just pause and think about that for a moment. It tells you a lot.

    Information to parents about their children – and the Deputy Leader of New Labour calls it “Political Propaganda”.

    Well, well. If education’s a passion for Labour, it’s a passion that dare not speak its results.

    SPORT

    While on education, I want to say a word about sport.

    Firstly, well done England on Wednesday. More please.

    And well done Scotland. I hear it was no effort at all. But you’d have won anyway.

    Last year, at this conference, I told you of my determination to restore sport, and particularly team sport, to the heart of school life.

    It’s natural and healthy for young people at school to have their sporting heroes and heroines: sportsmen and women whom they can choose as role models.

    So with the enthusiastic help of the Sports Councils, I’m going to set up a team of Sporting Ambassadors – widely drawn from the best role models in sports, our leading athletes, past and present – who’ll visit schools and talk to pupils, teaching staff, school governors and parents, to enthuse and inspire and encourage.

    To work up the scheme, I have asked that legendary England cricketer – that man for all seasons – Sir Colin Cowdrey – to chair a small committee whose members will be drawn from the elite of the sporting and academic worlds. Colin is here today and I want you to thank him for agreeing to do this.

    His committee will announce their conclusions by Christmas, and I intend that the scheme will be up and running in schools in the coming academic year.

    Colin scored nearly 8,000 runs for England. Now he’s going to inspire nearly 8 million boys and girls who might want to play, compete and represent their country.

    I want them to enjoy sport. And they’ll enjoy it more if they play to win.

    Take it from me – winning is fun.

    THE FAMILY

    There are those who believe in the self-before-everyone, grab-what-you-can school of thought. They may find opportunity for all an odd philosophy.

    But it’s ours.

    And for the last 17 years we’ve followed it.

    We’ve cut direct tax, given more and more people the opportunity to save, to own shares, own pensions, own homes.

    More than ever before, we’ve given families more independence and more freedom to choose.

    As a result, millions have become owners of homes, savings, shares and pensions.

    But not enough yet.

    Madam Chairman, in our next 5 years, we will seek new opportunities: an opportunity owning democracy.

    Helping more people save and build security for retirement.

    Helping people who need care keep more of those savings.

    We’re aiming for the least possible tax to give the greatest possible choice.

    As we can afford it, we’ll move to a 20p basic rate for all. That’s our priority.

    We know that cutting taxes isn’t government giving anything back to people.

    It’s the government taking away less of people’s own money.

    That’s why low taxes are right.

    We don’t want to soak the tax payer.

    Labour often say they want to soak the rich.

    But they’re the only party in history who also regularly manage to soak the poor.

    And sometimes no taxes are right. So, to encourage wealth creation for the future, we’ll reduce and then abolish Capital Gains Tax.

    Many people in our country build up savings long after they’ve enough for their own needs.

    One reason they do that is to pass on the fruits of their life’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    This is a powerful, human emotion.

    So, over time, our next target is to remove the burden of inheritance tax.

    Building wealth for the many, not for the few.

    WELFARE

    People treasure independence. Their own independence. The State is the last option, not the first.

    The more independence, the less reliance. The less reliance, the more we can help those in real need.

    There are many demands we must meet.

    Health – as science provides more treatment.

    Social services – as we improve care.

    We’ve always accepted this responsibility.

    But as we accept responsibility, so must people themselves.

    Dependency must be about needs, not culture.

    I can’t stand the welfare cheats. I’ll tell you why. They deprive those in real need.

    We’re determined that taxpayers’ money goes where it’s needed.

    Our task is to build a welfare system for the 21st century.

    A system for a self-help society – not a help-yourself society.

    And one way of building independence is to get more people back to work.

    We’re now doing that on a scale that’s the envy of Europe – partly because we refuse to make political gestures that cost jobs. That’s why I say “No” to the minimum wage and “No” to the Social Chapter.

    The minimum wage is the wage of the dole queue.

    It’s not a wage at all.

    How can you talk of a Social Chapter that makes it more difficult for people to find work.

    That’s why I say they’re no-go areas for jobs and no-go areas for us.

    It’s business not government that creates jobs.

    But government can help the unemployed.

    Last year I announced our plans to develop a Contract For Work.

    This week we Tories took a big step forward with the start of our new Job Seekers Allowance.

    We don’t want to pay people to stay on the dole. We do want to help them get back into work.

    So first we’re going to help those who’ve been out of work the longest. They’re the people for whom the barriers to opportunity are highest.

    First, we give them help to find a job and if that doesn’t succeed, they’ll be offered work on a community project.

    For many it’s just the motivation they need.

    But it also shows up those who don’t want to work. I think that’s right.

    So over the next year we’ll be extending the scheme to towns and cities across the country.

    This is part of building a welfare system we can afford. One that goes with the grain of the British nation. Fair to those in need. And fair to those who pay the bills.

    HEALTH

    Madam Chairman, every year, someone writes to The Times to say he has heard the first cuckoo of spring.

    And every year at the Labour conference, some cuckoo distorts out commitment to the National Health Service.

    Listen.

    Our NHS is unique.

    In this country, when you’re ill, we take your temperature.

    In other countries, they take your credit card. While I’m in Downing Street, that will never happen here.

    That doesn’t mean that National Health Service shouldn’t change. It must. If it were fossilised, it would decline.

    I saw that clearly the other day when Norma and I visited a doctor’s surgery – in Glossop actually.

    The family doctor is the gateway to the Health Service. More people see their doctor than anyone else.

    This was a fundholding practice – part of our reforms – and, in its own small way, an example of the quiet revolution of the NHS.

    Waiting lists have been slashed.

    People no longer have to trek to the district hospital.

    More services were available. Osteopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, counselling, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational-therapy posts created. Community Care improved. More money spend on patients, not paperwork.

    Tory policy working for the patient.

    Now, this practice is one of the very best. But that excellent service could be the future everywhere.

    Our task is to make it so.

    And this autumn, Stephen Dorrell will introduce a Bill to do just that – giving family doctors greater freedom to develop local services in their surgeries – creating a new generation of cottage hospitals all over Britain.

    And that’s only half of it. In the Autumn, Stephen will set out our ambitious plans to build the National Health Service for the 21st Century.

    And Labour’s vision? Stuck in the past and stuck in the mud – as usual. They plan to end fundholding.

    What ideological madness. Do you know what that would mean? I learnt in Glossop. It would mean that those new clinical posts, new nurses, new physiotherapists, the new occupational therapist – all these would go.

    New Labour, no new services.

    But, in the NHS we must always try to improve our services.

    So, before the end of this year, we’ll unveil new plans to help mentally ill people followed by new plans to reform social care for children, disabled people and the elderly.

    More practical Tory measures.

    And looking a little further ahead, I still hear too many stories of politically correct absurdities that prevent children being adopted by loving couples who would give them a good home. If that is happening, we should stop it.

    Madam Chairman, for over 17 years, through thick and thin, we Conservatives have found extra money for the NHS.

    It’s become a habit.

    So today, I give you a Health Service Guarantee.

    Our Manifesto pledge that the NHS will get more, over and above inflation, year … on year … on year … on year … on year … through the next Conservative Government.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Earlier this week, Michael Howard set out our new plans to fight crime. But there’s two things I’d like to add.

    Firstly, in a few weeks, we’ll published new plans to deal with younger offenders.

    They’re a real problem.

    We must spot school age children turning to crime and stop them in their tracks early on.

    One theme of our plans will be to make them repair the hurt they’ve done. And we’ll have some new ideas.

    But today, let me tell you of our plans for young tearaways who are out of control.

    We only want them in institutions if it’s really necessary.

    But if they don’t deserve that punishment – severe for young people – they mustn’t think they can offend and get away with it.

    Over the last year, we’ve been testing an electronic way of tagging offenders so we can confine them to their homes, and know that that curfew is being kept.

    It’s worked. We think it will work on younger offenders as well – so, we’ll try that too.

    If we know a young trouble maker is out there, night after night, disturbing the peace and committing crimes, we’ll make sure the courts have the power to order him to stay put. At home – off the streets.

    And the tag around his ankle – that can’t be removed – will raise the alert the moment he tries to go out.

    If he can’t go out on Friday and Saturday nights with his mates it might cool him down a bit. If he can’t watch his football team on Saturday, let me say it plain. That’s his fault. Not mine, not yours, his. And it’s time the buck stopped where the responsibility lies. No-one will miss the hooligan on the terrace.

    And he might just learn the lesson.

    And that will help him – as well as us.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Earlier this week, the IRA once spat their hate at the British nation.

    Many good people tell me I shouldn’t bother with Northern Ireland. “No votes in it” they say. Maybe not. But there are lives in it.

    And that’s why I bother.

    I don’t believe Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom, nor do I wish it to.

    But I know that there can only be a peace in Northern Ireland if all its citizens – Catholic and Protestant alike – feel their traditions have a welcome place in the United Kingdom. And there will only be peace of mind if we remove the causes that have given rise to so much conflict.

    This is a political task. Grindingly hard, I know. But that is what the multi-party talks are for.

    Progress has been slow – painfully slow. But progress has been made. And there is no other show in town.

    Bombs will not bring Sinn Fein into the talks.

    All they mean is that Sinn Fein has slammed the door on themselves.

    I applaud the way the Loyalists have maintained their ceasefire in the face of the IRA’s provocation. Their political leaders have gained in influence and standing as a result. I urge them to stand firm and not to throw away what they have achieved.

    The IRA’s latest betrayal of Northern Ireland means the demand for decommissioning of illegal arms is justified even more clearly.

    We must have decommissioning in parallel with the talks.

    And so that there’s no hiding place for those arms, missiles and explosives, Paddy Mayhew will introduce legislation into Parliament this autumn to set out how they can be taken out of circulation.

    I want those weapons off the street.

    And I want to remove the false excuses peddled by the men of violence for keeping their weapons. Let us expose these men to the world for what they are.

    I also want to make government in Northern Ireland more accountable and give MPs more responsibility. We have already given the Scottish and Welsh members greater ability to question Ministers.

    This autumn, I shall do the same for Northern Ireland. MPs from there should be able to question the Ministers and scrutinise Government policies directly in the Grand Committee, meeting sometimes in Northern Ireland. I will consult the parties about how best to achieve that.

    The IRA has always believed that Britain can be deflected by terrorism. They’ve always been wrong. And they’re wrong now.

    No-one will take Sinn Fein seriously ever again until they show a serious commitment to end violence for good.

    I believe in the politics of reason – backed by strong law enforcement. I know in the end it will prevail.

    And I promise the people of Northern Ireland this;

    For as long as there is a political breath in my body, I will fight for a secure way of life in Northern Ireland for a settlement fair to all.

    EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD

    Earlier this week, Ian Lang, Malcolm Rifkind and Ken Clarke set out exciting new possibilities for Britain as a global trading nation with interests around the world. Wonderful speeches, all of them.

    We have links and influence on every continent.

    We have given birth to a whole family of nations.

    I never forget that as I contemplate our future role in Europe.

    The sharpest element of the European debate is the possibility of a single European Currency.

    We Conservatives are in grown-up politics. We know that where Britain’s national interest is at stake, Britain’s national voice must be heard.

    Over recent days in articles, interviews and in this conference hall on Wednesday, I spelt out why we must play a full part in that debate.

    Madam Chairman, Europe is changing. The only thing that is certain is that it won’t be the same in the future.

    In a few years, Europe will have 26 or 27 members. They’ll be widely different. Many of them will never match the economic performance of the larger European nations.

    So, how do we cope with this?

    We believe Europe must become more flexible and responsive. That the only realistic future is a partnership of nations, not a United States of Europe.

    But some of our partners do see the future of Europe as ever closer political as well as economic integration.

    We don’t believe this is practical. Nor, to be frank, desirable.

    It’s not the Europe we joined and it’s not a Europe we can accept.

    This debate about the future direction of Europe is one of the most critical we have ever engaged in. We need to argue it fiercely but fairly.

    Europe is at a watershed.

    Britain is a great nation. Of course, we must be in Europe. But we are in Europe to help shape it – not to be shaped by it.

    NATION

    Madam Chairman, a buccaneering spirit, gritty resolve, give and take, a conviction that everyone is entitled to the same dignity, courtesy, and esteem because of what they are, not who they are.

    These are some of the values we all share. That’s what makes us a nation. Down the centuries, they have moulded our democracy.

    It’s not a concept of government copied across the world because it’s the oldest. It’s because it’s the best. We treasure it. That’s why we must hold on to it.

    The Union. Parliament. Our voting system. It’s naive to think that radical change would be easy or risk-free.

    And it’s revealing to look at Labour’s plans.

    Their priority would be to gerrymander the British constitution.

    They’ve avid for more parliaments, more assemblies, more regional assemblies.

    Their policy in in chaos. On Scottish referenda, they change sides more often than a windscreen wiper.

    What a message. “Vote Labour – for more politicians, more bureaucrats, more taxes, more regulations, more tampering, more meddling, more authoritarianism”.

    If this is the New Gospel, give me the old religion.

    In less than 1,000 days, Labour would vandalise nearly 1,000 years of British history.

    Once again, they show their true colours.

    Labour are the Party of the State. We are the Party of the Nation.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 5 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Saturday 5th October 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was any point in today’s meeting].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is always a point in getting together to discuss matters that are still undecided. I think in many ways we are here because we are here. But I think there are interesting things to be discussed and we will have to see what emerges from the meeting.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the meeting was caused by Britain’s strategy towards the IGC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, certainly not. We are here because there are a whole series of decisions that are not yet addressed. Europe has to make a whole series of decisions at this IGC and beyond it. What Britain is doing is not being recalcitrant, what Britain is doing is saying those matters have got to be properly addressed, they have got to be properly examined. There is no point in talking about a great leap forward unless people know precisely where you are leaping. We have to look at precisely what is being examined and discuss precisely what it will mean. That is the purpose of meetings like this.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what his key priorities were today].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will need to set out the things that concern us. There are some areas where I think that progress can be made: cooperation in justice and home affairs, for example; cooperation in subsidiarity for example; a re-weighing of votes in the European Union. These are all concrete matters that we can discuss. But I shall also need to say to people that we can’t accept the present situation on quota-hopping, as it is. I shall need to say to people that as far as the Working Time Directive is concerned, I believe that if the European Court of Justice finds against the United Kingdom, that that will breach and break the agreement that I reached at Maastricht, and I shall require a treaty change to amend that. So there are certainly important points for us to make.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would be discussing the single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That isn’t the subject of the meeting today. The meeting today is about the Intergovernmental Conference. I certainly don’t expect a substantive discussion on Economic and Monetary Union. But I think our partners know my view about that very well indeed. This is going to be one of the biggest decisions ever taken – be in doubt about that. It is going to affect the United Kingdom whether we are in it or out of it. It is going to affect every single country in Europe whether they are in a single currency or whether they are not. So every country has an interest in making sure that they are involved in the discussions and that the right decisions are taken. And if it isn’t right to go ahead, then they shouldn’t go ahead, but it is too early to be sure about that yet.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was worried at the pace the other countries wished to go].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the worry is that the economic conditions won’t be right. That is the fundamental problem. If the single currency were to be formed and would fail, it would not only impact upon those countries that were in it, it would impact upon all of Europe. So we all have a very great interest in making sure that the economic conditions are right, quite apart from the other matters that need to be decided.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would be talking to John Bruton about the peace process in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I have no doubt I will talk to Mr Bruton. We talk regularly on the telephone and we always take the opportunity of meetings to discuss where we are and what we think might happen, so I am sure we will be talking this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was content to talk to some other EU leaders who had been backing Tony Blair].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they are socialists, aren’t they? They are socialists and they would like a socialist government because they think a socialist government would give to Europe those things that a Conservative Government never would. So it is perfectly clear what they are doing, it is perfectly clear why they are doing it and I think it will show people in the United Kingdom very clearly. I don’t intend to let the sort of socialism that we put aside in the United Kingdom comes to the United Kingdom from Europe. If the Labour Party wants socialists from Europe, well, perhaps that sort of intervention at their conference will show up precisely what they are about.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Malcolm Rifkind – 5 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, held in Dublin on Saturday 5th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two at the outset about the discussions we have had today. The purpose of today’s discussion was to look particularly at the Intergovernmental Conference and the progress that had been made thus far. As with any negotiation of course, the real substance of the negotiation is likely to be done pretty near the end. We agreed today that we would seek the end the negotiation in June next year under the Dutch Presidency. We have also agreed, on a suggestion that I had made some time ago, that it would be helpful to see a draft treaty, perhaps in many cases with alternatives clauses for examination, at the December meeting in Dublin.

    A number of purposes of the IGC: firstly, to prepare for enlargement; secondly, to make the European Union more accessible to its citizens; thirdly perhaps to improve the efficiency of the European Union. I am bound to say for different members of the European Union that tends to mean at the moment rather different things. For some of our partners that means more majority voting, it means more powers for the European Parliament and more powers for the European institutions at the expense of national governments. Others have a different view of what it means.

    Let me make this point to you. The British are good Europeans. By good Europeans I mean that our record in implementing European law, our dedication to a liberal trading policy and our leading role in European defence, in all of those ways, if we enter into a commitment, we deliver upon that commitment. But I think that “Look before you leap” is a far better watch-word for the European Union than “Leap before you look”. And I made the points this afternoon that upon many of the issues to be discussed, it is no good just simply saying what the aspiration is, and what people would like to achieve, it is necessary to examine how you would get there and what it would actually mean for the member states if you did.

    I have tried to attest some of the assumptions that our partners have made. Let me perhaps give you a couple of examples. There is some suggesting amongst some of our colleagues that we should have a European Employment Charter in the Treaty. I wonder whether that is a good idea? We already have in the European Treaties a commitment to a high level of employment. But a treaty isn’t just a declaration, it is not just a declaratory document. A treaty creates rights, it creates obligations, it is justiciable before the European Court. I believe it would be cynical to write in obligations that cannot be met, and I made that point to our partners this afternoon.

    The second example I will give you, there could certainly be others, but the second example I will give you is defence. We can have a European defence identity through the Western European Union and through NATO. And of course that is the only credible way in which we can use NATO defence assets to carry out European initiatives. If we made the Western European Union subordinates to the European Union – as some colleagues in Europe wish us to do – then those NATO assets would be denied to us. I must say, I want a real defence, not one on paper only. So clearly there are difficult hurdles to overcome in that aspect of the negotiations.

    There are also some issues, as I indicated to colleagues this afternoon, where we shall require solutions to very serious problems. We reached an agreement to Maastricht some years ago which means that British companies are not saddled with job-destroying burdens. I shall expect our partners to stick to the letter, and to the spirit, of that agreement. And if the European Court decides against us in the Working Time Directive, I shall require treaty amendment to return the situation to what it was at the end of the Maastricht negotiation.

    I made clear to our partners this afternoon that it is also necessary to resolve the very serious question of quota hopping. National fishing quotas are meant to benefit not just the fishermen who catches the particular catch, but the fishing communities of each member state. If the present treaties don’t allow us to correct the abuses that presently exist under the Common Fisheries Policy, then the treaties must be changed, and that is another subject for discussion in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    In many of these areas I expect there will be quite a lot of tough negotiation. On some of the issues we will find allies; on others, perhaps at the outset at least, we may be alone. But I shan’t hesitate to say no to the ideas that I believe are wrong for Europe as a whole or wrong for the interests of the United Kingdom.

    I want to add another point if I may. There are more important matters at stake for the European Union than treaty changes. I prefer creating jobs than writing an employment chapter into the treaty that would not create jobs. I prefer real defence to defence on paper. I prefer practical cooperation on drugs and crime, not a theoretical arguments about Community competence. I know Community competence is a very fascinating subject for the cognoscenti, but competitiveness is a much better one for those people who don’t have jobs and would like to have jobs.

    When we had finished the discussions, and they were very much preliminary discussions, on the Intergovernmental Conference, we spent time, both over lunch and later in the afternoon, on the Middle East peace process and the Foreign Ministers spent some discussing that as well. The important issue essentially is that we continue to offer support to the Middle East peace process, vital we encourage people to negotiate, vital we ensure that nothing we can say can be seen as boxing people in corners and making it more difficult for them to try and reach an agreement with one another.

    I also took the opportunity of being here to have a brief discussion with John Bruton about the Northern Ireland peace process. We reviewed the position that we have currently reached in the Belfast talks. Both of us believe that progress is not remotely as rapid as we would have liked and we would like all parties to redouble their efforts in the talks. We clearly need to discuss the question of decommissioning further. We are certain that progress in the decommissioning talks should be made on the basis of Senator Mitchell’s report. We are agreed about that. We will of course keep in very close contact. Today wasn’t the day for making decisions, it was just an occasion to review the present state of play in those negotiations.

    So those are the matters we have touched upon today and the Foreign Secretary and I will happily answer any further questions you may have about any of those matters.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Hugh Pym, ITN):

    Prime Minister, did you register your disapproval of Dr Hansch’s remarks in his speech in Cork, and remarks after that that he made in a debate last night?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I did. Yes I did. I told him his remarks were offensive, and I think he knows that. I suggested in particular that it was apparent some members of the European Parliament, senior members, senior representatives of the European Parliament, clearly did not understand what British policy was. He took the point very clearly that I was talking about him and not other people. I think the points I made to him had some impact.

    QUESTION:

    Are there specific areas that you would like the Irish Presidency to deal with in the coming months that have not been addressed to date?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think it has been rather a good Presidency. Having the Presidency of the European Union is not the most attractive job in the world, it is trying to reconcile 15 different competing interests across a whole range of subjects. I think they have done rather well. They assembled an agenda for today. I think there were mixed feelings about whether there was any practical purpose in having today, but the Irish had no choice but to proceed today.

    That was a decision that was taken some time ago, and they have done so. They are working extremely hard to produce a draft treaty, albeit with alternatives for December, and that is a pretty massive job and I think they are doing it pretty well. So I have no criticism at all to make of the Irish Presidency. I think they are doing well and I am sure they will continue to do well.

    QUESTION (Hosni Imam, Kuwait News Agency, London):

    I wonder if you could put some gloss on the decisions you have taken on the Middle East, particularly about sending an envoy to the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was discussed both amongst Foreign Ministers and amongst Heads of Government. If I could make a general point about that first. Progress in the Middle East talks will be made between President Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu, or it won’t be made. Let us not believe that the European Union, or indeed anybody else, is going to determine that progress. What will happen is that Dick Spring, representing the European Union Foreign Ministers, will be going, probably on Monday I think and will meet Mr Netanyahu and also meet Mr Arafat to express the European Union’s concerns, and of course to offer any assistance that we can perhaps provide. But essentially we can do a little more than continue to assist in material matters, as we do very much with the Palestinian authority, quite a lot of cash from countries within the European Union and the European Union collectively, and quite a lot of important relationships with Israel through the Cooperation Agreement. So I think we are in a position to apply some pressure, but we ought not to let anyone misunderstand how much we can do. We can apply pressure but it is the Israelis and it is the Palestinians that will determine whether progress is going to be made or not. The Foreign Secretary may want to add something about his talks?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    No, I have nothing to add to that, Prime Minister.

    QUESTION.

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is going on holiday.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    That is Dick Spring. Dick Spring will be going on behalf of the European Union.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And he is probably going on Monday, as I said.

    QUESTION (Polish News Agency):

    Both Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac said that enlargement to Eastern Europe would happen by the year 2000. Would you consider this date unrealistic and in what context was enlargement discussed during today’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, you will recall it was the United Kingdom and Germany who were the foremost advocates of enlargement to the East. I passionately believe that the most important thing that the European Union ought to be doing at the moment is not institutional change, which often takes so much time, but enlargement to the East. We have an historic opportunity in this generation of politicians to extend the European Union to the East, which I think has great security advantages and will have great advantages in removing the economic Iron Curtain that has also been set right across the middle of Europe. So I am very much in favour of that and we were one of the great advocates of Poland and the other Central and Eastern European countries coming in, and we still are. I would add we are also more enthusiastic to open European trade borders to the Central and East European nations than most of our colleagues as well.

    Can it be done by the year 2000? If it can, no-one would be more pleased than us. It is an ambitious target but it is not a target that would be delayed as a result of any policy inhibition on the part of the British government, we would welcome it.

    As to the context of enlargement, enlargement is going to involve institutional change and it was in that context predominantly that it was discussed.

    QUESTION (RTE News):

    On Anglo-Irish matters, you had a brief discussion with the Taoiseach, but in essence the peace process in Northern Ireland is dead in the water. For three and a half months nothing has been achieved at the Stormont buildings, how are you going to put new life back into the process between you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t agree with your assessment, with respect. I am something of a veteran over the past four years of being told that the peace process is dead. I have been told that on many occasions. But I don’t believe it. The peace process does often take two steps forward and one step back. If often gets into a phase where suddenly everyone is very optimistic because quite a lot suddenly seems to be being achieved and then suddenly it grinds to a halt while each of the respective negotiators goes back to their grass roots, assembles views, assembles feelings, and decides how they can move forward. We have been in a frustrating stop period for some time, it has got bogged down, I think that is absolutely true. But I don’t think, because it has been bogged down for a period, that one should assume that it is dead.

    And the reason I don’t believe you should assume that is not because there are not difficulties about, self-evidently there are, it would be foolish to deny that there were not difficulties. But the overwhelming wish, the overwhelming will, of the people in Northern Ireland, is to push the politicians further into making an agreement. And I think that is very important.

    The process was dealt a very savage blow indeed when the IRA returned to violence, there can be no conceivable doubt about that, not just because they had returned to violence, but because it fractured any embryonic belief that existed amongst any Unionists that they ever were serious about giving up on violence. So we must judge them on their actions. I hope we are going to get another ceasefire. There is no sign of it. We occasionally get talk of it from Sinn Fein/IRA circles, but that is all thus far it has turned out to be.

    But the peace process itself will continue and there will be set-backs. I have no doubt on future occasions people will say to me this is dead.

    But for so long as I can push it forward I will continue to try and do so and I believe that would be John Bruton’s view as well.

    QUESTION (Spanish News Agency:)

    When you say that you are not happy with the quota fishing system, because it does not benefit the community, do you mean that it is necessary to change the treaty, do you mean that it is necessary to change the distribution within the treaty, do you mean that it is necessary to change the distribution with the quota, or you are completely against the system of quotas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed quotas in a different context at one stage in terms of asylum, so I wasn’t quite sure which element you were talking about. As far as quota hopping is concerned, the principal problem is this. When the Common Fisheries Policy was first determined, there were quotas determined for each national country. And the expectation was that the fish would be caught by the national fishermen, and then docked in the national ports, and create the growing employment for the fishing communities that results from the fish going back to its own domestic port. What has happened subsequently, with quota-hopping, is that national quotas have been purchased by another nation and that has had a very severe impact upon the fishing industry ashore, and upon fishing communities. And what I have said to my colleagues is that that was not what we intended when we agreed the Common Fisheries Policy and it has very severe effects on particular parts of Europe, and particularly particular parts of the United Kingdom, and it is no longer tolerable for the system to continue as it is.

    So we have tabled a Protocol to change the circumstances on quota-hopping and we will be looking at that, and other issues, to see what can be done to ensure that the original intention of the treaty becomes the current operation of the treaty.

    QUESTION (Tom Burrows, Market News):

    Although it was not on the official agenda, was in any shape or form EMU discussed; and secondly, was the EU’s trading relations with other blocs discussed, for example in the context of the work the Foreign Secretary has been doing on improving trade relations with [indistinct] and North America?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. On the second point, no, trading blocs were not discussed on this occasion. They are very important, but they just weren’t on the agenda today. As far as EMU was concerned, it wasn’t discussed. If I might say, it was mentioned but not discussed. People made passing references to it, I made passing references to it, but it wasn’t a subject of discussion. I hope that is not thought to be an odd difference to draw, but that is actually what happened, some people said we must go ahead with it; other people pointed out the timetable was at risk; other people said there are difficulties that haven’t yet been confronted. But that was all that was said, not discussed.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

    In common with a limited number of other senior Privy Councillors, you have received a letter from the Editor of the Guardian containing prima facie evidence alleging a government cover-up in reaction to the recent corruption scandals which are being investigated. What is your reaction to the evidence that you have been presented with and can you give a clear and unqualified assurance that no member of the government has been involved in any such cover-up or has in any sense misled the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For some time the Guardian and other people have been running the most extraordinarily suggestive stories. Let me say to you absolutely clear that I am determined that the House of Commons investigates properly and fully the allegations that have been made. I might perhaps remind you that, against the opposition of many people, I was the person who set up the Nolan Committee. Many people didn’t like that, but I was determined that Parliament should be clean and above suspicion and I established the Nolan Committee. Sir Gordon Downey sprang out of the Nolan Report. I asked Sir Gordon Downey, I was not asked by Sir Gordon Downey, I said to Sir Gordon Downey that he might have all the documentation that he requires to carry out the inquiry that he needs to carry out.

    And I went further. I said he can also see all the documentation that was provided for the court case that did not take place, so that he – Sir Gordon – can satisfy himself he has every document that he needs to carry out his investigation. When he has investigated, he will report to the appropriate Commons Committee on members’ interests. I have no doubt they will follow their previous practice of publishing his report, and that is what I would expect them to do. What I am not going to do is to respond to a whole series of individual allegations, upon which a particular spin may be put, until this investigation is completed.

    I have made sure that the investigation has full cooperation, I am sure the investigation will be comprehensive, I have no doubt it will be properly considered by the appropriate House of Commons committee and I have no doubt the report, at their instigation, will then be published. And I would think that people, since they have such a comprehensive report, might wait for that report before they make comments or publish articles that may mislead and encourage other people to misunderstand.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing in London – 25 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing, held in London on 25th September 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to make a long introductory series of remarks. Just very briefly, there are just 2 or 3 things that seem to me to be quite important at the moment. Very important that the peace process continues. I remain as committed to it as I was in the past. Underneath the surface oratory quite a lot is happening, a lot still has yet to happen, and it is very important that it does. We will continue to give it all the support we can. I will no doubt enlarge on that in any questions, if you wish me to. Not a helpful occurrence, the huge potential explosion that didn’t take place. We have been in no doubt for some time that the IRA were planning future atrocities. This would have been a very big one, it didn’t take place, I think we can all be thankful for that. Thirdly, the European Summit approaches with the Irish Presidency, clearly a lot of very important European issues about, not just the preparation for the Inter-governmental Conference, though that certainly is important, also the continuing work that is proceeding towards the possibility of monetary union at a later stage, and also of course a range of other problems – working time directive, beef, fishing and a whole series of other things.

    If I may say so, the Presidency of the European Union is always a mixed blessing for the country that has the privilege to hold it. I daresay that John Bruton and his colleagues are discovering that, just as all his predecessors have in the past. It is a tough old job being President of the European Union for 6 months, and everyone takes it up with huge enthusiasm and in my experience usually lays it down with equally huge enthusiasm 6 months later. So I look forward to seeing my European colleagues in Dublin twice – once on 5 October for an informal meeting I believe, though the agenda is not yet finally determined, as I understand it; and then for the normal 6 monthly meeting at the end of the year.

    QUESTION (Sunday Tribune):

    Prime Minister, there was that incident in London that you said was not very helpful, has it been clarified yet as to whether the person who was shot dead was armed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be a matter for the Coroner. The Police undertook the action, the incident occurred, I don’t know what happened. The Coroner will examine that and there will be a subsequent investigation but I don’t know the details of it yet. I don’t know all the details of the police investigation yet, no doubt that will come out subsequently.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] so many explosives and arms [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some things self-evidently are revealed. It self-evidently reveals the fact that the IRA were perfectly prepared to continue violence on the mainland, and not only continue violence on the mainland but continue violence on a very large scale indeed – 8 to 10 tons of explosives. That dwarfs anything we have seen before. This was clearly, whatever it was going to be, one or more for all we know, one or more very large incidents. Having said that, it is difficult to know what the psychology of the IRA is. I suspect there are divisions of opinion, quite sharp divisions of opinion, within the IRA as to the right way to proceed. There will be those, I am sure, who are arguing that if you commit another outrage it will force the British Government into concessions. That has been a standard piece of Republican – I mean Republican in the sense of IRA Republican – thinking for a very long time. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way any British Government, not just this one, would respond, but it is the way they think. And so very possibly they were thinking that it would put pressure on us. It would have done immense damage to the peace process if that had occurred, and would have destroyed any shred of credibility that remained amongst the leadership of Sinn Fein. I am very disappointed that Sinn Fein have not unequivocally denounced what happened, I think it would have been extremely helpful if they had.

    At some stage Sinn Fein are going to have to make it clear precisely what their position is: either they are the political wing of the IRA, in which case there is no real role for them as people who will sanction violence; or they have got to denounce the IRA and say we are a democratic political party, in which case they are welcome at the negotiating table to argue their views with the DUP, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the others. I hope they will prove to be a political party. I have to say, they haven’t proved it yet. And a failure to denounce what undoubtedly would have been an atrocity, leading to mass murder, in unequivocal terms is pretty disappointed to put it mildly.

    QUESTION (Daily Correspondent, Dublin):

    As a supplementary to what you said about atrocities not influencing the British Government, the public perception throughout Ireland is that the Canary Wharf bombing did in fact influence you into taking action, action that people felt had been very slow in coming before that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That may be the perception, because that is the way people choose to think and act. I can tell you, sitting here, the only thing atrocities do as far as I am concerned is make me dig my heels in more against the people who commit the atrocities. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the British character, and I think the Northern Irish character, I don’t mean it isn’t the case for the southern Irish character, I don’t know that quite so well, but the Northern Irish character to believe that we would actually respond in that fashion. I know it is something that the IRA believe, that is self-evident to anyone who has made even a cursory study of them, but it is just flatly wrong. Canary Wharf did not influence the government’s decisions at all. Those sort of atrocities often, if they have any influence at all, have a malign influence in holding back moves that might otherwise have been taken towards rapprochement and proper dialogue. That is the only impact it has and it is a wholly negative impact. It would not have a positive impact of encouraging the British government into constructive dialogue, quite the reverse.

    QUESTION:

    There is another perception which is that for 17 months up to the Canary Wharf bombing the British Government perhaps acted too slowly in response to the initial ceasefire. How do you respond to that now, looking back, and possibly looking forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you exactly how I respond to it. I genuinely say to you it is a wrong perception. It has always seemed apparent to me that if you were going to have these negotiations continue, they cannot continue down a track in which one side seems to be winning every element of the argument and the other side seems to be losing. And there was a straight-forward and blunt disagreement between two effective sides of the negotiating table, one side saying we will only decommission at the end of the talks, and the other side saying we will only begin the talks if you decommission before the talks begin. Aft immense amount of work went into trying to find a way through that. It was apparent at the beginning that at the end of a long amount of discussion it was very likely that the way through would have to be decommissioning in parallel with talks. The Mitchell Commission was established, an independent look was taken, and they indeed ratified what I expected would be the case when they looked at it, and that is the only way it is going to come forward. But what caused the delay was the fact that if one had proceeded without having that particular element of the argument in play, the talks would have got nowhere because we would have called the talks and one side or the other would not have been prepared to talk because there would have been conditions laid on the table that the other side simply could not meet. And that is the fundamental reality that we had to face during that long period.

    QUESTION:

    But was that pragmatic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is pragmatic, I am a pragmatist on some issues. I am a pragmatist about finding a way that will end the murder and mayhem that we have seen in Northern Ireland. It is important to me that people realise that this is an issue that has been, and is, and will remain for as long as I sit in Downing Street, a matter at the top of the British government’s agenda.

    I don’t think what happens in Northern Ireland is tolerable. If it had been happening in Surrey or Sussex I wouldn’t have tolerated it, couldn’t have tolerated it, why should I tolerate it in Northern Ireland, I can’t. That is why I will pursue these talks. But the belief that you can do it, and reach a peace and a settlement that will last to provide both peace and peace of mind in Northern Ireland, without actually getting a negotiated settlement is folly. So you have got to create the conditions for a negotiation and that is very painful and difficult when you have competing views asking for pre-conditions that the other side can’t meet, and it is a lengthy business that takes a lot of time. I said at the beginning that it would often be 2 steps forward and 1 back, 2 forward and 1 back, and so it has proved. The important point is that we keep taking the steps forward.

    QUESTION:

    You mentioned that had the bomb gone off it would have caused immense damage to the peace process. How do you respond to the view that is being expressed, not just by the media but by politicians as well, that if it is discovered that the alleged IRA volunteer was unarmed, that that will do damage to the process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to comment on something I know nothing about at this stage, and I think it would be extremely unwise of me to do so. Let us wait and see what happened, and why it happened, and then we can make a proper judgment of it. What we do know is that there was a huge amount of explosives which presumably wasn’t there for any purpose other than to be used. We do know that. Beyond that the information is not yet clear and our system of law requires that there is a Coroner’s Inquiry and a proper investigation. When we have had the inquiry and the investigation, then would be the time for the government to respond, not in advance of the inquiry and the information. So I fear there is nothing I am going to say about that until I have the information, but at the moment I don’t have that.

    QUESTION:

    What is your personal assessment of Gerry Adams?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I find it difficult to make a judgment of Gerry Adams. He talks of his wish for peace and yet he doesn’t denounce atrocities that operate against peace. He has indicated on a number of occasions that he is moving in a particular direction, he hasn’t done so. What I don’t know is whether he is a man who wants to move in that direction but is constrained by his membership, or whether he is deliberately seeking a public relations posture that does not reflect his real views. It is difficult to know precisely.

    What I can say is that I do think that he could be a good deal more forward and constructive in trying to carry the peace process forward and I hope he will be so. But I don’t think my personal view of Gerry Adams is – well I won’t continue with that sentence, I will leave it there.

    QUESTION:

    What does this mean, I am quoting from Sir Patrick Mayhew’s speech today, in which he says that the restoration of the ceasefire, [indistinct] to the Mitchell principles, and then it says and entrusting to the issue of decommissioning. What does that mean, to the issue of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means exactly what it says, that there has got to be constructive discussion about how one actually decommissions the weapons. What we have not said, not because it wouldn’t be desirable but because it wouldn’t be deliverable, is that the weapons should be entirely decommissioned before Sinn Fein enter the discussions, the talks. What we have said is that during the currency of the talks there has got to be progressive decommissioning in order to build confidence on both sides. And don’t think, unless we have a parallel track like that operating, that we will get to the end of the talks.

    And what has been the missing ingredient for so long in this whole sorry affair is any element of trust between the representatives of the various communities. Progress in the talks, and decommissioning, would add an element of trust and confidence that this could be carried through to a conclusion that we haven’t previously seen. And I hope that is the direction that we can go in. If we don’t move in that direction then I think the prospects for the talks are grim.

    QUESTION:

    Something you said earlier echoes something that the Secretary of State said this morning, and that is that progress is being made even if it is not being seen. Not only is it not the public perception that progress is not being made, many of the politicians taking part in the talks, and particularly Seamus Mallon has said that in fact the Unionists are stalling and holding them up. Can you give us any indication which shows that progress is being made and indeed would explain the Taoiseach’s optimism about what is happening at the moment, because it is certainly not apparent to anyone else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If one wanted an analogy for the talks I suppose you could think of a duck on the water, not a lot seems to be happening on the surface but the animal is paddling like hell beneath it. And there is a certain amount of that going on.

    There is more contact between the two sides in private, between the Unionists and the Nationalists in private; there is a much greater understanding between the two sides; I think there is a greater appreciation of what I called a moment ago the parallel process of decommissioning. All of those are happening under the surface. One of the things that bedevils it of course is that often public statements are made in order to bolster a particular position and as part of the negotiating process, which give the impression that no progress is being made at all. And progress is being made, not as fast as I would wish, but I think progress is being made.

    QUESTION:

    In what areas, other than perhaps the breakdown and the animosity that was there previously between the SDLP and the Unionists, in what areas is there further progress because the one particular issue that we thought we would see reaffirmed by September, September was the date, was the whole question of a format for decommissioning. We know that people are meeting each other certainly, and we know that people are making statements in public, but we have had no evidence to support the claim that these are purely public statements and that progress is being made. So what evidence is there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you will have to wait. I am not going to outline the information that has come to me of what has emerged from some of these private contacts, I don’t think it would be productive to the peace process to do so. I can only say to you that I think the atmosphere has improved quite significantly over the last few weeks, I am not saying to you that all is roses, self-evidently not, you know that and I. know that and everybody involved with it knows that. But the atmosphere has noticeably improved and many of the hurdles that people wondered whether we would get over just a few months ago have been got over. Would we actually get up to the elections? Would people take part? Would the forum be established? Would anyone turn up? Would anybody sign up to the Mitchell principles? All those things, one by one, all of them have had their little dramas of one sort or another – well not little, in many cases quite big dramas – all of them have had their dramas but one by one we have overcome those points. And you could actually go back over much of the last 5 years and see the same thing. The frustration one has is really two-fold: firstly that it is taking so long; and secondly that from time to time there is a set-back. Both of those I share the frustration very personally that all of you must share reporting it, but that the progress has been made is undeniable and I think it is still happening and I think it has a good deal further to go.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that John Cree contributed to the distrust that has been established between the two communities and that that had any impact on the progress of the peace talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt that there was a great deal of fuss after John Cree, absolutely no doubt. There was a great deal of fuss on both sides of the sectarian divide after John Cree, it would be absurd not to say that that wasn’t the case, it was, and there was plenty of blame to spread around in every direction. The point is the atmosphere has lightened a good deal since then, I said there would be occasional set-backs, that was a set-back, don’t expect me to say it wasn’t, it was.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    One of the perceptions in Ireland is that Mr Bruton is doing more to lean on Nationalists, Republicans, than you are doing in leaning on the Unionists, and in fact the idea that the Unionists are holding things up, are not being persuaded is quite widely spread. There is also a feeling that they can be persuaded, they can be pushed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a false perception. I don’t doubt that John Bruton is encouraging people to move. I have regular discussions with John and I know how strongly he feels about this issue, he knows how strongly I feel about it. Anybody who seriously thinks haven’t used all the influence I have to encourage people to move forward into this process, hasn’t examined what has happened in this process over the last few years. So people may have that perception. But I suppose there are many things you learn sitting in this particular chair and one of them is that there is often quite a gap between perception and reality.

    QUESTION:

    The Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein maintain, at least in public, that if they were sure of the how and the when of decommissioning then it might be possible to have a ceasefire and Sinn Fein go into talks, because Sinn Fein’s fear is that they will be sucked into talks and get nothing.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But that is the reason for the progressive decommissioning. I think that argument, I mean I wouldn’t agree with that argument because I think there is absolutely no justification for violence to pursue a political argument at all. Let me just say that at the outset. But given that that is my position, and I think the position of most people, what people are saying to Sinn Fein and the IRA is let us have progressive decommissioning, decommission something, see how the talks proceed, as the talks proceed decommission a bit more. If you are really trying to press your political points, remove the impediments to other people who are saying we are not going to negotiate everything, and then at the last minute have Sinn Fein walk away from the table threatening to return to violence because they didn’t get the last element of the deal that they wanted. There are going to be compromises in this deal, if this is going to come to a conclusion there are going to have to be compromises, don’t imagine otherwise. No one side is going to get everything they want.

    So what is the logical argument against a progressive decommissioning in line with progressive movement in the political process? I am not asking, and never have asked, the IRA to put themselves in a position where they have to come and throw down their weapons in front of the British government. I don’t mind how they are decommissioned, I don’t mind what international body actually oversees the decommissioning, I don’t mind about that. I just want them taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] in the north of Ireland to the extent that the RUC was forced to back down in the face of the threat of violence at Drumcree, and he said on a number of occasions that it was not possible for the police to hold the line and that that situation might prevail again. That seems to be a very serious admission that the British Government has lost control in the north?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we patently haven’t lost control in the north. We have got 17,000 troops there, we have had them there for years, we have got a very large RUC presence, there were a particular set of circumstances on a particular incident. No-one should think one hasn’t learned from that incident. To draw a general conclusion about law and order from a particular incident and a particular series of decisions taken by the Chief Constable I think would be to read too much into that particular incident. So I wouldn’t accept the conclusion you draw from it.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary of State made that conclusion.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen what the Secretary of State said and I don’t draw the conclusion in its generality in the way that you present it to me.

    QUESTION:

    When the Taoiseach went to Washington recently, I am sure you will have seen that there was a story generated as a result of that that he appeared to be optimistic about the chance of a new ceasefire and there was some clarification sought [indistinct] the true import of what he said. But in the Republic I sense there is a feeling that the Taoiseach has been drumming up a sense of optimism, that a deal is inevitable, and we are trying to get the sense of whether this optimism is founded on a good basis. Can you send us away with some feeling of where the progress really is occurring?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer is I won’t. I am sorry but it is the outcome I want, not the publicity. Forgive me, I suppose that is a dreadful thing to say to you, but it is the outcome I want, not the publicity,

    QUESTION (Sunday Tribune):

    I listened to you very eloquently last year of your passion for peace in Northern Ireland, as you are today. What went wrong in the last year and how do you re-mend it to get Sinn Fein/IRA to the talks, at the same time undoing the damage of Drumcree and the sectarian [indistinct] that exists in Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Quite a lot has gone right as well as gone wrong. I won’t reiterate the points about the elections and the forum, and the Mitchell Principles and the fact that the parties are now actually sitting down talking together in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. All that is right. What has not gone right is the fact that violence has returned – that was a unilateral decision by the IRA – and Drumcree was an incident which caused difficulties, we have dealt with that and that we can’t get Sinn Fein back into a position in advance of the ceasefire where they could credibly join the talks.

    They couldn’t credibly join the talks, even if .I were inclined to invite them – which I wouldn’t be – because nobody else would remain at the talks to talk to them. So the question in many ways ought more accurately to be directed to the IRA. I don’t know what caused them to decide that they would return to violence. I can make judgments as to what it is – I am not going to, before you ask me to – and I think those judgments might be right, but I don’t know. I hope that as it becomes increasingly evident that progress is going to be made, and that we are not going to back away from this peace process and neither are the Irish Government, whether Sinn Fein are there or not, that it will become increasingly apparent to Sinn Fein that they are going to have to be there. And if they are going to have to be there, there is going to have to be a ceasefire and it is going to have to be credible, and there is going to have to be progressive decommissioning in line with political progress. What I am not prepared to do is to see these talks grind into the sand and stop because of the way the IRA have behaved. I am not prepared to do that, I will do everything I can to avoid that happening, and I hope that we will see a ceasefire in due course and that they will return. But I can’t determine that myself.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I don’t, if you mean of a particular issue?

    QUESTION:

    Yes.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I don’t, no. I don’t do that.

    QUESTION:

    If you enjoyed a stronger majority in the House of Commons, do you think you might have been able to move faster?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think that is a false assessment because I have had a lot of cross-party support in the House of Commons. The majority in the House of Commons for the posture the government has taken is absolutely overwhelming. On any free vote in the House of Commons I would have a massive majority for this policy in the House of Commons. So the argument that the policy is held back by the size of the government’s majority does not stand up to any logical examination at all.

    QUESTION:

    What about the increasing evidence that the Republican movement, both Sinn Fein and the IRA, are going to sit it out and they are going to wait for a Labour government in Britain and a Fianne Foyle government in Dublin. Does that cause you concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are going to have a jolly long wait.

    QUESTION:

    But it is something obviously you are aware of?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am aware that that might be their view. I think they are in for an extremely unpleasant shock, I can live with the shock they are going to be receiving, but I think they are in for an extremely unpleasant shock if they actually take that view.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My word, you are sharp.

    QUESTION:

    The implication of it is that they are not going to do business, that they are going to hold back and that they are going to continually attack the British Government and try to force a coalition in the south against the British Government as well.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If that is the strategy that they choose to pursue, why were they floating the prospect a few weeks ago that they were going to declare a ceasefire? If that is the strategy, how are they going to deal with the fact that there is going to be progress made in the talks without them being there? There is going to be progress made in the talks without them being there. If they want to sit it out they will miss the progress, they will have no voice at that table for those talks and those talks are going to continue. I am determined on that and so is John Bruton. So if that is their strategy it is an extremely misguided one.

    QUESTION:

    On progressive decommissioning the [inaudible] argument is very valid. Can there be an agreement in the multi-party talks that all the parties already in the multi-party talks will accept progressive decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by all the parties.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you had better ask that question of David Trimble and not me. I am looking for an agreement that will enable us to have parallel decommissioning and political progress.

    QUESTION:

    At what stage would the first [inaudible] have to be decommissioned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That would be one of the matters that the decommissioning sub-committee would examine. It is not something that I would prescribe myself, I would be perfectly prepared to prescribe it myself but it wouldn’t be the best way of getting an agreement, it would have to be an agreement in the discussions between the participating parties in the Mitchell sub-committee, it would have to be done that way.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    In the event of a sustained impasse developing in the all-party talks, what alternative is there open to the government? Would it, for example, have a bilateral agreement with the Irish government and then attempt to impose that over the heads of the parties?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I wanted to bring the talks to a juddering halt, I would suggest what I would do in the event of that actually happening. I don’t think it would be helpful for me to speculate at all on what I would do. I expect the talks to continue, and I believe the talks will continue and I wish the talks to continue and I am not going to speculate.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that the British government has a fall-back position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Whether we have a fall-back position or not, I am not going to speculate about it.

    QUESTION:

    Tomorrow morning Gerry Adams will be in the House of Commons. Does this infuriate you, what are your feelings on [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am happy to offer cross-party support to Mr Blair in his problem.

    QUESTION:

    Is he offering you cross-party support in your problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He has offered me cross-party support on Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    But on Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But he has got the same problems that I have.

    QUESTION:

    But yours are particularly acute.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Only because your colleagues in the press tend to concentrate more on ours. He has got more real anti-Europeans and Euro-sceptics in the Labour Party than there is in the Conservative Party. Do not be deceived about that. The day Mr Skinner, Mr Benn, Mr Shore and 50 others I could easily mention become anything other than solidly opposed to any aspect of the European venture will be a very remarkable day indeed. They are keeping very quiet for the time being.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] and maybe history will tell us, that by meeting Gerry Adams in the House of Commons you might actually achieve the securing of the peace talks once again. Have you thought that you might be able to help by having such a meeting, would it not be an issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that it would help at this moment to have such a meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it would help to have such a meeting at this moment. Gerry Adams has just utterly declined to condemn the prospect of 10 tons of explosives, in the middle of London or wherever it may be; he utterly failed to condemn the murder of those little boys at Warrington; he utterly failed to condemn Canary Wharf. Upon what basis would a British Prime Minister meet him when that is his position?

    QUESTION:

    Because you might move the situation forward and achieve a ceasefire as a result of a gesture like that, it is just a suggestion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I understand you are putting it to me as a suggestion but I don’t think it is a suggestion that is credible at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    There is very little evidence that the Unionist parties have any interest in these talks, with or without Sinn Fein, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that they will sit down with Sinn Fein, even in the context of a ceasefire. How do you bring all-party talks about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With great respect, you say there is little evidence that they will actually do it.

    QUESTION:

    Because they feel that they don’t have to.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is right and I will try and answer your question I think in two complementary ways. Firstly, the comment that you just made that they don’t have an interest in proceeding and so forth, that is exactly the view that many people have taken right the way through the last few years, that they would never accept the Downing Street Declaration, they would never accept the framework plan, that they would never accept a whole range of other things. Gradually they and the Nationalist parties have accepted those things. I understand the frustration, and at any one time can find 10,000 reasons why there won’t be progress. But slowly, often I concede at a snail’s pace, progress is continually being made, each hurdle gradually has been overcome.

    The other point that I personally make, you may have heard me say it before but I passionately believe it to be true, that whatever the view may be of the political parties at any one stage, the view of the everyday citizen in Northern Ireland is that they want progress. For the first time in the lifetime of nearly half the people in Northern Ireland, they had an 18 month period in which they had the same sort of peaceful existence that people could expect in London or in Dublin. And they liked that. When one is out on the streets meeting with them and talking with them, the tangible feeling from them, from the churches, from the community leaders that they wish to see that return is real. Now the political parties have to be in negotiating posture. But don’t think as individuals that in the case of the politicians that they too don’t want the return of that. I have seen some of them, both sides, I am not making a Unionist point or a Nationalist point, I have seen some of those MPs, whether in the Ulster Unionist Party or any of the other political parties, the SDLP, the DUP, I have seen those MPs after there has been some atrocity in their constituency. So of course they have negotiating positions, but the feeling amongst their supporters, whichever party they represent, that they want and they believe the politicians should find a way through this problem is tangible.

    Now what we have to do is to stop the thing that has bedevilled Northern Ireland so frequently over recent years where you have something that becomes a part of the mythology and hauls progress back just when you think you are moving forward. That happens from time to time but we are going to have to try and ride over that. The greatest hope for peace in Northern Ireland is retaining the determination amongst ordinary people, everyday people, that they have a right to that peace in their part of the island of Ireland. I believe that very strongly. Every time I go there I believe that, whether they are people who are supportive of what r am doing or oppose what I am doing. I think the politicians are not immune from that and they cannot be immune from that.

    QUESTION:

    The worrying thing is that of course there is a desire for peace, but we have never seen the dearth of sectarianism that we now see across Northern Ireland, and indeed across the [indistinct] and this is the result that it would seem from the post-Drumcree split where the Province was paralysed, where towns and villages were surrounded and barricaded and where force seemed to triumph. So the politicians really would need to break out of that sectarianism and show leadership, but there is very little leadership being shown. Certainly perhaps on the Nationalist side we have people like John Hume and Seamus Mallon, but on the Unionist side [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Out of disaster can come triumph. I think the sheer concern that you illustrate, which I know existed in Northern Ireland after Drumcree, the sheer concern and in some cases fear as to what might happen that actually came out of that, I think shook everybody, including the politicians. I believe that does change minds. Who would wish in any way to be in the position where it was said they had contributed to that problem again? Who in public life in Northern Ireland would wish to find themselves in that position? It is not so easy to strike attitudes on the back of that. So I don’t think Drumcree was a plus, but I think out of Drumcree you can see the possibility of changed attitudes and I think we will see a possibility of changed attitudes, and I am not as pessimistic as some of the comments around this table lead me to believe that you are, not at all.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] which is the religious thing [Indistinct] do you understand that, because that is your core problem? [Indistinct] and the churchmen have [Indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My experience of the churchmen, overwhelmingly, whether it is on the Protestant side or on the Catholic side, is that they have been very supportive. I have met the senior churchmen regularly here and they have been unfailingly supportive. They haven’t always agreed with every aspect of government policy, I am not trying to suggest that to you, but their desire to see this process move forward, on no occasion have they denied their support when I particularly needed it to move the process forward. And I think some of the things they have said, on both sides, have been very brave. I don’t agree with everything they have said and I wouldn’t pretend to you that I did, but some of it I think has been very brave.

    QUESTION:

    Ted Heath, in his proposal through the power-sharing executive [Indistinct] education because of the failure of [Indistinct] they don’t get to the core. What are your proposals for an integrated education in Northern Ireland? It is things like that that get back to the basics.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take that point directly. One of the things that Northern Ireland has lacked over the past 25 years or so is politicians in Northern Ireland who had to take decisions rather than to advance views. That is profoundly worrying. Politicians ought to take decisions and then answer for their decisions. I want to get back to a situation in Northern Ireland where politicians actually take decisions on local matters and have to answer to people for the decisions they take, rather than simply represent their electors with the views that they and their electors have had. When you are faced with the reality of taking decisions, it is a different proposition from when you are simply advancing a view. And that is the direction in which I am moving and the direction in which I wish to move. Once they are taking decisions the ball-game begins to change. And there is a lot of talent in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy in Northern Ireland that for 25 years you have not had politicians with any real decision-making to take.

    QUESTION:

    I am happy about what you are saying. I remember being present at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin when Protestant churchmen came down, and I think it was Dr Mahaffey who said, he was being asked to discuss the problem of leadership, and he said you can’t lead from a mile down the road. And that struck me, I thought it was a worrying kind of observation. Would you make any comment on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a slightly ambiguous observation. Can you tell me who said it?

    QUESTION:

    Dr Mahaffey, the Bishop of Derry.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For a Bishop he would make a superb politician because there is a degree of studied ambiguity in that which I very much admire.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you for clarification of one point, because it is ambiguous and it is open to several interpretations, and that is your comment that you want to see politicians in Northern Ireland getting back to making decisions. You know there is a great fear on the part of a number of Nationalists of a return to a Stormont-type situation and you know there is a desire on the part of some Unionist politicians for a return. So what exactly do you mean?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I know exactly what you are worrying about, am I talking about a wholly internal settlement? No, I am not talking about a wholly internal settlement. I am talking about the fact that as part of the three-stranded process, as part of the discussions between the parties, we have got to get ourselves into a situation where there is a genuine capacity for decisions that in the rest of the United Kingdom are actually taken directly by local politicians actually being taken in Northern Ireland as well. I am glad you raised that question so that there was no misunderstanding about it. It is a lack of accountability when so much of the decision-making process which normally ought to be in local hands is not in local hands. I would like to put it back in local hands, I think it is a very healthy thing to do. But it isn’t an easy thing to do and it has to be done by agreement, but it is one of the things that I think we need to stretch to. If we are going to get this thing really working properly it is going to be platform by platform, step by step, you are going to have to build it up. I think that is one of the building blocks.

    QUESTION:

    What contribution do you think the framework document can make in that respect, and the [Indistinct] document that actually talks about building political structures locally as well as cross-border institutions and executive powers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The framework document is not a blueprint. The blueprint, if indeed there is to be one, will come out of the talks and then it will be agreed between the political parties. What we were effectively asked to do was to provide a cock-shy as it were, a framework that we thought, that we the government thought, would be acceptable to people. But neither of the governments are saying this is an absolute blueprint from which no-one can deviate, these are things that they will have to discuss themselves.

    QUESTION:

    The Irish Government is saying that it should form a very important building block.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is self-evidently a very important building block.

    QUESTION:

    You accept that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course it is an important building block, that is why we developed the frameworks. An important building block, yes; written in letters of fire and immutable, no. It has to be discussed and agreed, it is a basis for the discussion and agreement that is to follow. But what we wish to see is to make sure that that discussion and agreement takes place. We have set out in the frameworks the areas that we think need discussing. But if it was immutable there would be no point in going into the talks process. We have to go into the talks process so that we can find out the degree of support, or opposition, or areas where mild changes may be needed amongst the various political parties in Northern Ireland. And then after that of course, when a final agreement has been reached, it will need to be put to all the people of Northern Ireland as an outcome in a referendum.

    QUESTION:

    Can you envisage the outline of a settlement, as Dick Spring has suggested he thought was possible over the last few days, an idea yourself of how this could be resolved and over what timescale?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Timescale depends on goodwill. It is very difficult to pick timescale. With serious and mature discussion and a willingness to pragmatically compromise and decommissioning proceeding in parallel, I think quite rapid progress could be made. Without any of those ingredients progress is going to be very slow. So I think that is the difficulty when people occasionally say to us well why don’t you set a constraining time limit to the talks? What would happen is that anybody who wished the talks to fail would simply fail to reach agreement within the time frame and that it would all fall to pieces. So although it sounds as though it would put impetus into the talks, I think it would ensure the talks ground to a halt. If you mean can I see a way in which you could have an outcome, personally yes I do see a way in which there could be an outcome. But it isn’t what I think at the end of the day is going to be the only determining factor. The principal determining factor will be what can be agreed between the political parties and either for John Bruton, or Dick Spring, or I to say we think this is the right way forward might not necessarily – I say this with some humility – be the best way to ensure that you got that agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that you will call your general election before John Bruton calls his?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that depends on when John Bruton calls his.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] November, but May/June might be more realistic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This year or next year? Well I am in no hurry for my general election. Our economy is now outstripping the rest of Europe quite comfortably and the economic statistics are rolling out extremely well. We have now got inflation at levels we haven’t seen it for a very long time; we have got mortgage rates and interest rates lower than we have had for a very long time indeed; we have got growth accelerating, exports accelerating and we are probably the most competitive nation at the moment in Western Europe. And there is no doubt that that trend looks pretty well established. So I am in no hurry. I am happy to let the trend roll on for a while.

    QUESTION:

    When will you decide on EMU?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t know the facts to decide on it yet. Let us assume you were a farmer, well you might be for all I know. A farmer asked me the other day: How will EMU affect me? And I said to the farmer: Well I can’t tell you the answer to that question. He said how will it affect me if we – by that he meant the UK – are in EMU? I said: I can’t tell you that yet. How will it affect us if you are not in EMU? I said: I can’t tell you that yet, I don’t know what the circumstances of it are. Will it affect us? Yes, I said to him, it will affect you whether we are in it or whether we are out of it.

    And that is really the substantive point. If it is going to affect my country whether we are in it or whether we are not in it, how could I explain to the farmer, or the businessman, or the man in the city, or the man or woman in the street, that I had decided to rule myself out of those negotiations when the outcome of those negotiations would affect them? What would I have said to my farmer who asked me whether it would affect him, and I said Yes, when he then said to me: Then why are you, the British Prime Minister, not in there negotiating in my interests?

    What is the answer to that question? There is no answer to that question. And the decision that will be taken on Economic and Monetary Union for Europe as a whole, I am not just talking of the UK, will be the biggest economic decision Europe has taken. It needs to be right, it needs to be considered. You have to consider what it means for the smaller countries of Europe as well as the big countries of Europe. You have to consider what it means for the countries who don’t go into a single currency as well as those who do go into a single currency.

    If people are Statesmen, they would have to consider what it means for the countries who are coming into the European Union as well as those who are in it. The biggest single issue I think that the European Union has to face is how to absorb into the European Union those former Iron Curtain countries in central Europe who look to the West for freedom, an open market and a quality of life that we enjoy in the West. That is an opportunity for this generation of politicians that no generation of politicians has ever had before – the opportunity to create an economic market that would prevent the sort of wars that have twice started in Europe in this century and that in the last few years we have seen in Yugoslavia. l think that is a bigger prize than institutional change within the existing members of the European Union. And I think to concentrate on the institutional change, without looking at that wider picture that may ensure that our children and our grandchildren never face the sort of difficulties that our fathers and our grandfathers faced, is not Statesmanship but folly. And that is why I think we have to look at that as the first issue.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was pleased about the progress at Stormont, but how would he stop slow progress in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do welcome it very much, I think we are now making progress. What we now need to do is to move from the talks about talks, the talks about procedure to talks about the items which should be on the agenda and then to get on to the talks about substance and to do it speedily and I hope we can use the momentum created by the enormous disappointment – almost despair – felt by so many people after Drumcree to give some real momentum to these talks. That I think is the best way to restore confidence across Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Loyalist paramilitaries were being treated differently to Sinn Fein].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a difference between the Loyalists at the moment and Sinn Fein. The Loyalists have a ceasefire, they have held to that ceasefire, they are engaging constructively in the talks, they have accepted the six Mitchell principles. None of those things apply to Sinn Fein and the IRA; they are in the middle of a campaign, we have seen a campaign, they are not engaged constructively in the talks and they haven’t accepted the Mitchell principles. I wish they would. I would like to see Sinn Fein/IRA call a ceasefire, it is what I believe every sensible person in Northern Ireland would like to hear from them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would let Sinn Fein join the talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I propose that they should get themselves into the talks. That is what I have set the talks up for. For a very long time Sinn Fein and others have said: “We need to sit in round-table talks with the other political parties!” You know, I know, everyone watching this interview knows that has been their cry for very many years.

    I have delivered an opportunity for them to do so. We have set up these talks, we have set up a forum in which they can take part. That opportunity to sit down face-to-face with the other politicians they have wanted to meet for a long time is there and the only reason they haven’t taken it is because they don’t have a ceasefire and they haven’t adopted the Mitchell principles and it is in their hands to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if mob rule was ruling Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, mob rule isn’t going to rule and it mustn’t be allowed to rule. The events of Drumcree were a disgrace and so were the events that followed it and on both sides the behaviour frankly in many cases was appalling, let there be no doubt whatsoever about that and I hope everyone has learned the lesson of Drumcree.

    Nobody gained from Drumcree. I hope the Orange Order or anybody else don’t think they gained anything from Drumcree. Everybody lost including the peace process in Northern Ireland. What we now have to do is to prevent a recurrence of that sort of event and use that event to push some real momentum into the talks in the months and weeks ahead and that is what we intend to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the marches situation was now out of control].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course it isn’t out of control and there is a great deal of work going on at local level between community leaders and others to make sure that the Apprentice Boys march does not cause trouble and I think it is very important that it doesn’t and Northern Ireland will feel very badly let down if anybody gets out of hand in the Apprentice Boys march.

    Freedom of marching and assembly is a traditional part of the United Kingdom tradition, it has been that way for a long time but it needs to be exercised responsibly and with restraint. The right to march should be a right to march for something not a march that is seen as an affront by other people and I hope those people organising that march or indeed any march realise that while they have a right to peacefully march, they do not have a right to cause disturbance and affront to other people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he wanted Northern Ireland to be governed in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to see a peaceful Northern Ireland governed certainly with its own proper local government structure. We have had three generations of Irish politicians who have never had any responsibility at all except to advance views but never any responsibility to take decisions. That is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and I would like to see that corrected. Beyond that, it is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland but I would imagine they would still be part of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Michelle Smith’s performance in the Olympics].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a superb performance, a magnificent performance. I don’t think anybody expected Michelle to win three gold medals and there may of course yet be a fourth in the butterfly so I very much hope there is. My warmest congratulations. I hope that everyone on the island of Ireland is cheering her, she deserves the support, she is getting a lot of cheers from over here.