The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They could come into the talks.

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 10 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton, held at Stormont Castle on Monday 10th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly say how pleased I am to be joined at this press conference by the Taoiseach. It has been a fairly lengthy and a fairly difficult process to get where we are today to the beginning of talks. And yet this is in many senses just the end of the beginning. There is a great deal that lies ahead in the negotiations that will begin with the discussions today.

    I don’t think either John or I have any illusions about the difficulty of the task that still lies ahead. It is going potentially to be long, to be difficult and to be demanding not just of the two governments but of all the participants as well.

    Of course in our discussions today Sinn Fein are not present in those discussions. But no amount of grand standing by them can hide the fact that all-party talks are a reality and that they are going to continue. Sinn Fein can be a part of that process provided there is an unequivocal ceasefire. Without an unequivocal ceasefire, they cannot be part of that process and the process will continue without them. And that is a wholly united position between the two governments.

    Despite their absence, this is an historic day. It is an opportunity to begin putting behind everyone some centuries of enmity and distrust.

    In the last two or three decades, we have seen an enormous amount of wholly senseless violence, a violence that I believe is abhorrent to the ordinary law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, similarly abhorrent to other parts of the United Kingdom, and also to the citizens of the Irish Republic.

    In Northern Ireland I have no doubt that people want a just and fair settlement, and I believe that also applies to others as well. And I don’t believe they are asking for something that is unreasonable – the opportunity to lead a normal life, the opportunity to have the same hopes and aspirations that other people automatically accept in their own way of life.

    What we have seen since the ceasefire in 1994 is a glimpse of the opportunities that could exist for Northern Ireland given a permanent settlement of the dispute that has riven the area for so long. I believe it is wicked, quite literally wicked, that the shadow of violence has reappeared in Northern Ireland and I hope we are going to get that unequivocal ceasefire before too long.

    Let me say a word about the talks process that has begun today. There is, I believe, a very heavy responsibility upon the participants in these particular talks, a heavy responsibility to participate fully in the process, a heavy responsibility to, wherever necessary, see if they can reach a reasonable compromise towards getting a settlement, and above all a responsibility to make sure that they will continue to talk one to the other so that they may finally find the settlement that people have been longing for for so long.

    It would, of course, be very easy to prevent a settlement in these talks, nothing easier than declining to agree in discussions of this sort, and it will be very hard to forge an agreement in these talks. But no-one can deny which is the better outcome and I hope everyone taking part in them will try and forge that agreement.

    There has been a great deal of discussion, and I think that is to the good. Before the meeting commenced this afternoon I had a meeting with David Trimble and John Taylor, with Ian Paisley and with Robert McCartney. And I don’t think they have any doubt about the possibilities ahead and I am sure that applies to all the other participants as well.

    Let me say immediately how grateful I am to George Mitchell, John de Chatelain and Harri Holkery for the part that they have so generously offered to play in these negotiations, They have, individually and collectively, a great amount of talent and experience, a great amount of integrity, and I am confident of their impartiality. I believe they can work with objectivity and understanding and I look forward to them taking up their responsibilities. They are very substantial responsibilities. They don’t come to them entirely fresh, they come to them on the back of a practical set of principles to set the talks in a context of democracy and non-violence; they come on the back of proposals that deal with the thorny area of decommissioning, the proposals set out in the Mitchell Report; and they offer a way forward so that both the negotiations and the decommissioning can take place in parallel in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    As far as the British government is concerned, it will do all it can to further the negotiations. And ultimately it is for the participants themselves in these negotiations to reach and agree an outcome. Once that outcome has been agreed, it must first go to a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland and then, as appropriate, for legislation in the British Parliament.

    To all the people in these negotiations this morning I think I would simply say this. The eyes of people not just in Northern Ireland, the Republic and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the eyes of people right the way round the world are on these negotiations at present. There is a great deal of hope residing in the belief that these negotiations offer the best opportunity for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland that we have seen for many decades. We cannot afford to fail, because the opportunities that have now been opened, having reached this far in the discussions, may not easily re-emerge were this opportunity not to be taken.

    I hope and I believe that everybody engaged in the negotiations understands quite what rests upon a successful outcome of those negotiations. The hopes and expectations of very many people rest upon the goodwill and the negotiating skills, and courage where necessary to compromise, of the people involved in these particular talks. I wish them well. But there can be absolutely no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland want these talks to succeed, and I very much hope that they will.

    MR BRUTON:

    The first thing I would like to say is that all those who are gathered for these talks have a tremendous opportunity to do enormous good, not only for the people of this island, but for the people of the neighbouring island, and for successive generations to come. This is truly an enormous opportunity, but it is an opportunity that can only be taken if there is a willingness to compromise by those who are gathered around this table, or who have a right to take their place at the table.

    What is being sought is to overcome the legacy of history. And what is being sought to be resolved is a difference about allegiance, and there is no more difficult political difference to overcome than a difference of allegiance.

    I think it is important also that people put their efforts in context by recalling all those who have died in the unresolved conflict over the last 27 or more years. I particularly feel this strongly as I came here to Belfast from the funeral of Garda Jerry McCabe, somebody who was shot down in the prime of his life, for no reason, for no good, who paid the supreme sacrifice. And there are so many other Jerry McCabes who have paid the supreme sacrifice. But there are those who have the opportunity now to make compromises, to have a sense of a very heavy responsibility to ensure that there will be no repetition of these types of loss of life of the kind that we have witnessed on this island and indeed in Britain for so long.

    I particularly recalled in my address some of the politicians who gave their lives, but the politicians were perhaps the ones who obtained more notice. But there are people who didn’t lose their lives, who are suffering, in constant pain from injuries from which they will never recover. Their pain is just the daily bread of their life.

    Those who gather together here have a responsibility. If they cannot alleviate the physical pain that those people suffer, at least to seek to alleviate the psychological pain by giving those who suffered so much a sense that the cause of that suffering is being removed. People should see their responsibilities in that broader human context. This is not simply a political exercise. This is an opportunity for all to put right a great wrong, and that wrong was violence and division.

    I recall the fact that the Republican Movement in particular have campaigned throughout the length and breadth of these islands and across the world on the slogan “Peace Talks Now”. Now is today. Today is the day that talks are available. And only one condition needs to be fulfilled for everybody, including Sinn Fein, to be present at those talks, and that is a restoration of the IRA’s ceasefire.

    Sinn Fein have already accepted the Mitchell principles. And it is worth recalling that the first of the Mitchell principles is total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. There is no consistency between accepting those principles and not having an immediate IRA ceasefire. Failure to restore a full and immediate IRA ceasefire is inconsistent with the very first of the Mitchell principles. I think it is also important to recall that another one of the Mitchell principles calls for an end to punishment beatings and killings for good.

    I want to compliment all the parties who have come to these talks for the commitment they have shown. I want to say that the atmosphere, given the legacy of difference that has existed in the past, at least in the period that the Prime Minister and I were present, was good and constructive.

    I want also, speaking as I do on behalf of an Irish government, to recognise the just pride in their own tradition and in their own British allegiance of a Unionist community represented by various parties at these talks. They are, as the poet John Hewitt said, “no stranger here”. And it is important to recognise that constitutional nationalists in all of the great debates that have gone on within nationalism over recent years has come, not just simply to recognise the Unionist community as having a distinctive cultural ethos, but has also come to recognise – and this was difficult, but it has happened – that their sense of being British is a crucial and central part of their identity as a Unionist community.

    That is now recognised, it perhaps was not recognised in the same way 20 or 10 years ago, it is now recognised by Nationalists and that to my mind gives real reason for hope.

    But to northern Nationalists I also say, on behalf of the Irish government, that we in the south have failed in the past, particularly in the early years when we were so painfully constructing our own state, we failed to give adequate, as distinct from self-serving rhetorical, adequate practical support to the Nationalist community in defending their rights and asserting their sense of Irish National allegiance.

    I believe a great change is now taking place. That change represents an attempt, a sincere attempt on all sides, to come together. As I said in my few remarks, I quoted the words of King George V in 1920 where he appealed to all Irish people to pause and stretch out a hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget and to join in making the land, which they love, one in which there was a new era of peace.

    And the important thing I think, to move on from those words, is the fact that both communities in this part of Ireland truly do love this land. They belong here. All that is needed is for each community to recognise that the other belongs here too.

    I believe that that is happening. And where appeals of that nature may have fallen on less responsive ears in the past, I believe we may be seeing now a time when there will be a meaningful response and where we will create a political structure, in this island and in this part of this island, to which all can give equally.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Could I ask you both on behalf of your governments at the beginning of the negotiations between the parties here in the north, what claim both your governments make on these six counties now and how far you are prepared to go during the course of negotiations? What claim does the Irish Government make on the six counties?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Our aim is to provide an opportunity for people to find a way of walking together. I believe that claims of the kind that you refer to which are phrased I think in territorial terms, don’t represent the reality of the modern world where people can move from one territory to another with such great ease.

    What is crucial now is the sense of allegiance that each individual feels not to the land that they live on or what flag flies on that land or who has the deeds of the land. What is important is the sense of allegiance that each individual wherever they live feels themselves and what we are seeking to do in these negotiations and certainly I see the framework document that the Prime Minister and I agreed as being essentially an agreement whereby we are putting the allegiance of people first and putting matters of claims of the kind that you raised into their proper, comparatively less important role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And the allegiances will be determined and endorsed in a referendum as I said earlier.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a chance that Mr Mitchell will now not chair the talks as you originally planned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope not and I would expect not. George Mitchell is a very able and talented man, he spent a great deal of time and trouble over the Mitchell Report and the Mitchell principles are the basis that formed the entry point into these particular discussions. Quite apart from George Mitchell’s natural talents and ability to chair the plenary, I believe that much otherwise fruitless discussions about what the Mitchell Report might have meant can be readily dispensed if you have the author of the Mitchell Report chairing the plenary when he can make it perfectly plan what he meant and he was perfectly plain in his report about the need for decommissioning to go alongside political negotiations during the talks.

    I think it is perfectly proper for the participants to discuss this, they are going to have to sit under the chairmanship at the end of all the discussions and I think it is perfectly proper for them to discuss it, but I very much hope and believe that George Mitchell will be acceptable and will carry out his responsibilities.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    Prime Minister, the Taoiseach mentioned the framework document twice in his speech earlier and he has mentioned it just now, but I notice it is not mentioned in your speech. Has there been a cooling of enthusiasm on the British Government’s part in relation to the framework document, have you retreated from it or gone cool on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the interesting aspects of these negotiations all the way through is that if John and say the same thing everyone says: “It is extremely boring! They agree! They are concerted!”, but we both agreed the Downing Street Declaration, we both agreed the framework document as a possible outcome. We were asked actually to consider that by the participants and to do that; we did that and those agreements were made and were reached.

    We have now reached the circumstances where the negotiators themselves will determine what is satisfactory. We can’t impose it upon them, we are not in the business of imposing things upon people. That, firstly, is not the way we wish to proceed, and secondly, it would not be effective. That is the background against which they now carry out their negotiations and you should read nothing sinister into any textual differences between the Taoiseach and I on that or indeed on other matters; I dare say there were one or two things in my speech that John didn’t mention, I will look carefully through and see what they are but in essence it has to be determined by the negotiators, that is the basis upon which these talks take place.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you ever pinch yourself in the past two years or ask yourself whether you had been too cautious about the peace process because the republicans said today they don’t trust you. Why should they trust you against that background?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose I might have pinched myself two ways: I might have pinched myself if the republicans said I was too cautious and I might have pinched myself if some of the unionists said I was quite the reverse. The reality is that this is only going to succeed if we bring all the parties together to talk and an awful lot of people I seem to recall, not just over the past two years but over the last five years or so, have predicted with absolute certainty that we would never get to this day, exactly the same people who said you will never get agreement on the Downing Street Declaration; exactly the same people who said you would never get agreement on frameworks; exactly the same people who said you would never find a way in which you can hold the elections and everybody will take part, someone will walk out; exactly the same people who said you won’t get agreement on the forum and exactly the same people who said you would actually not get everybody sitting around the table. If I pinched myself every time somebody suggested that wouldn’t be achieved, I would quite literally be black and blue from head to tail and I promise you I am not.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, on what basis you have this confidence, unlike many people in Northern Ireland who believe this process is doomed, and you believe it can work?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is the same point I have just been making. People have been saying this process is doomed from the very first day but there is, if I may put it this way, a secret weapon in making sure that this talks process succeeds and the secret weapon is the determination of the people of Northern Ireland who have had not just the last 25 years, historically much longer but certainly the last 25 years in which their living standards, their well-being, their security, their safety, their whole way of life has been totally diminished by the violence that we have just seen and my judgement of the people out there – I don’t just mean the negotiators, I mean the people they represent, all the people of Northern Ireland – is that they are sick and tired of this issue and they want their politicians and their governments to come together and actually see if they can find a solution. I think that is a powerful imperative and it is upon that basis that I think there is an obligation upon the elected politicians in Northern Ireland to do everything they can to try and reach a settlement. They won’t have to answer to me if they don’t or to the Taoiseach if they don’t, they will have to answer to the people of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Prime Minister, did you get any assurances from either Mr Trimble or Mr Paisley about the position of Senator Mitchell, particularly in view of the fact that Mr Paisley was saying categorically this morning that if Senator Mitchell was there he would walk out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I didn’t hear what Ian Paisley may have said to you this morning and I am not going to comment on reported comments. I discussed the matter with them and I think at the end of the day that George Mitchell will prove acceptable and I think that is most certainly going to happen, it is being discussed now and I am confident of the outcome.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Did he give you a promise to that effect though?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I had a private discussion with them Michael; I don’t talk about private discussions.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, have any events in recent days or weeks changed your conviction that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness do not intend to get the ceasefire upon which their participation depends?

    To the Taoiseach, the same question but is it still your conviction that they cannot and that they are somehow beholden to other forces within the IRA?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can’t know entirely what is happening within their minds or within the IRA. What we can know and what we have both stated quite clearly is that providing there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire, then the route is open for Sinn Fein to take part in this talks process. Without that, the route is closed for Sinn Fein.

    We have done what we can in order to facilitate an all-party talks process that included Sinn Fein. We have carried out our obligations, it is now a matter for the IRA.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    There are two other points I would add to what the Prime Minister has said.

    First of all, I think it is very important to recognise that many people who voted for Sinn Fein did so in order to encourage Sinn Fein to pursue a peace strategy and indeed in their campaign they referred to peace a lot and obviously the opportunity that they have to pursue a peace strategy is made available to them in these talks starting today and the only obligation that is required is that the IRA would reinstate the ceasefire and I believe that that in fact creates a great pressure for a restoration of the ceasefire.

    I would also like to make the point that John Hume and the SDLP over many years when many others didn’t, shall we say, have confidence in the commitment of Sinn Fein and the Republican Movement ultimately to a peaceful solution, John Hume kept faith with them. It is very clear that John Hume and the SDLP also want them to come into these talks and want the IRA to have a ceasefire now so that that can happen. I think all of those forces within their own community and in light of their own mandate are working towards the restoration of the ceasefire and I believe that weight will be given to those.

    It is furthermore very important to make the point that the two governments have sought to give answers to every query – to every issue that was raised there have been answers provided – and the condition has been created now for truly inclusive and meaningful negotiations which you will recollect is what they were looking for all along. That is now there, those negotiations start today and all that needs to be done for Sinn Fein to take their full part on the strength of their full mandate is for the first of the Mitchell principles to be accepted by the entire Republican Movement.

    QUESTION (Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, if there is an IRA ceasefire will you be willing to meet Gerry Adams and shake his hand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us get the IRA ceasefire first shall we and then we will deal with other matters of that sort.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is possible to reach a lasting settlement which will take in this part of Ireland without Sinn Fein or do you think the talks are, in the words of an Irish government official, not worth a penny candle without them?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think that it is very important that Sinn Fein should be in the talks but I will put it this way: nobody has a veto. I think we have been hearing indeed from the Republican Movement that no one party should have a veto; they were of course thinking of somebody else when they were saying that but equally, they don’t have a veto either and it is important to make the point that nobody, whether they be nationalists or unionists, whether they be a big party or a small party, has a veto and in that sense of course the talks that are starting today, which represent 85 percent of the people plus the two governments, can do a great deal of business but for the sake of completeness and as part of the reflection of the peace process that has been running for a number of years now which was one of bringing everybody in from both extremes as well as the middle, to give fulfilment to that process it is important that Sinn Fein are there and it is important that they be allowed to be there by the IRA.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Let us see. Hopefully, that question will not have to be answered. We can’t answer that with a double hypothesis involved in the question and it is not really possible to answer it without engaging in the gift of prophecy and it is difficult enough to deal with the present without having to cast oneself and one’s skills that far forward.

    QUESTION (BBC Newsnight):

    If and when there is a ceasefire and Sinn Fein come to the talks, the DUP has said quite clearly that they will leave. Is it possible to have a settlement in Northern Ireland without the DUP on board?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to see what happens when we get a ceasefire and what the circumstances of the ceasefire are. I think often many people and many parties have a particular position but these are moving negotiations, they are not static. I can recall other statements made by one party or another relating to today – that has changed as they all sit down together today so I am not going to be in the business of saying things that are going to make it more difficult for everybody to take part in inclusive talks later. I think we can get inclusive discussions and that is what we will be working for.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think it is also worth making the point that all the parties represent people and that the overwhelming majority of the people who support all the parties want a settlement, they may not want exactly the same settlement but they all want a settlement and I don’t think that the electorate that supported any of the parties would forgive any one of them if they were the ones that prevented the possibility of a settlement being achieved.

    It is important to make the point that there is a responsibility on everybody’s shoulders here, it is not just a responsibility for the governments or for the bigger parties, everybody has a responsibility.

    QUESTION (New York Times):

    Mr Adams repeated today what he has been saying for at least a week now, that regardless of what happens today or this week, Sinn Fein will be part of an all-inclusive settlement. Do both of you agree with him that this will come to pass?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can certainly be part of an all-inclusive settlement, we have gone to a great deal of trouble to give him the opportunity to become part of an all-inclusive settlement. We would like Sinn Fein in the talks, there ought to be no doubt about that, we have been saying that consistently over the past couple of years.

    The option for that to happen is with Mr Adams and with the IRA. If what he is hinting at is that there is going to be a ceasefire then I am very pleased to hear that.

  • PMQT – 21 May 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House about the foreign policy implications, and the implications for our troops on the ground, of the governing party’s decision to accept lots and lots of Bosnian Serb money? Does he accept that our troops cannot be seen as impartial when their commanders at home have accepted money from a–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility whatever for any funding for his party. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops, that is an entirely different matter. Let me make it clear, in case any hon. Member wishes to ask the same question later, that the Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for money that goes to the Conservative party. Now, put the question properly and correctly.

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are foreign policy implications, and implications for our troops on the ground, in the position that the governing party has adopted with regard to Bosnian Serb money?

    The Prime Minister: Nothing ever stands in the way of the interests of British troops as far as the Government are concerned.

    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to take note of the report of the Transport Select Committee on airport capacity? Will he undertake to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term framework for airport policy, possibly including the provision of an estuarial airport, so that there may be environmental relief for the existing London airports?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look carefully at the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Mr. Blair: In the light of the concern expressed even in Government circles about the funding of political parties, is not the right, fair and honourable thing to do to widen the remit of the Nolan committee so that the funding of all political parties could be looked at in a proper and impartial manner?

    The Prime Minister: No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which made a number of recommendations on the openness of party accounts. The Conservative party accepted all those recommendations: the Labour party has not accepted all those recommendations. If the Labour leader is concerned about the matter, perhaps he will now commit himself to do so.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has allegations to make about any party’s political funding, is not the proper and reasonable thing to do to refer the matter to the Nolan committee so that it can consider it impartially? If the governing party does not accept that, the inevitable question that everyone will ask is what it has got to hide.

    The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party may not have heard in the hubbub, but I answered his second question–since it was the same as his first question–a few moments ago. I will repeat it for him. The matter has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee. We follow the remit it set out: the Labour party does not.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Does Mr. Blair wish to come back?

    Mr. Blair: I do. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Be quiet.

    Mr. Blair: I rise by popular request. When gifts are disguised as loans and money is accepted from foreigners, most people in this country would think–would they not?–that the best thing would be to have the Nolan committee consider party funding, so that justice could be done and be seen to be done and not covered up and hidden by the Conservative party.

    The Prime Minister: It is really no use the leader of the Labour party flying into a tantrum. It is only in the Labour party that donations and money buy influence. In the Labour party, the trade unions provide the funds in return for votes at Labour’s party conference and the party’s trade union paymasters still have a say in Labour’s election manifesto. That is the real scandal in party funding and the Labour leader cannot duck it.

    Mr. Jessel: Here is a popular matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, this morning, the National Heritage Select Committee reported on the national lottery? It said that the national lottery is a huge success. It is twice the success hoped for by the most optimistic optimists.

    The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly a great success and is raising huge sums of money for good causes. I am especially pleased to note that the fears expressed by so many people some months ago that charitable donations would fall are now shown to be wrong. In addition to the fact that donations have risen, a substantial amount from the lottery fund also goes to charities.

    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with Government officials donations from Serb sources to the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: I do not discuss donations to the Conservative party with civil servants, nor have I. The right hon. Gentleman should know–it was pointed out to the House some time ago–that I devolved any responsibility whatever for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I did that not recently, but several years ago.

    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the efforts of Mr. Gerry Adams to try to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend remember that, when Mr. Adams tells us that he has consulted the IRA, he has merely looked in his bathroom mirror?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. That point is well known to every right hon. and hon. Member. We believe that it is extremely important that the talks on Northern Ireland are successful. The only way in which Sinn Fein will find itself a part of those talks is if there is a clear-cut, unequivocal ceasefire by the IRA. In the absence of that, Sinn Fein will not be part of the talks. I hope that that is entirely clear to Sinn Fein, to the IRA and to every hon. Member.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice: Given the respective states of their finances this time last year, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government are still massively in debt but his party, all of a sudden, is not?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the figures, she will see a substantial reduction in the fiscal deficit; the figure has been falling for some time and will go on falling. I am sure that she will be pleased about that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families have cause to be grateful to him for his introduction, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the tax-exempt special savings account? Is that not the right way to create a real stakeholder society, rather than abolishing child benefit and imposing new taxes on cars, which one half of the Labour party wishes to do and the other half does not?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in both aspects of his question. TESSAs have proved a huge success. Literally billions of pounds have been saved by families in TESSAs; many of them are now coming to maturity, and a large proportion of that matured sum is now being reinvested. I believe that that is the right way to encourage wealth, for the determination of individual purchases and to pass on between generations. We believe in the acquisition of wealth–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I am pleased to hear that the Opposition do not believe in that. It explains their proposal for a tartan tax, and the shadow transport spokesman’s desire to tax people more often; it explains their proposal to tax families with youngsters going through A-levels and their proposal to tax everything that they can possibly lay their hands on to fund their expenditure plans. I am happy to set out the clear difference between our party and the Labour party on spending and taxes.

    Mr. Fatchett: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on Yorkshire Water’s failure last summer to deliver a regular and uninterrupted water supply to the people of west Yorkshire? Does he recognise that that privatised company failed in its obligations to the people of west Yorkshire and in its obligation not to put at risk the health and economic activity of those people? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the people of west Yorkshire benefited from Yorkshire Water and had a reduction in their water bills? Can the Prime Minister explain why he is the only person in the country who now seems prepared to defend the privatised Yorkshire Water?

    The Prime Minister: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman still has such innate hostility to private ownership. I am delighted to say that large numbers of people yesterday showed no innate hostility to buying Railtrack when, once again, we had a privatisation that was massively over-subscribed.

    I made it perfectly clear that we want Yorkshire Water to consider and to take action, as the commissioners have recommended that it should. It has begun to do so. It has completed a £100 million programme of pipeline and pumping station construction and this year it has made a £12 million investment in leakage reduction. Those are the measures that we expect it to take so that it can provide the service that consumers in Yorkshire expect and deserve.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the timely and apposite speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the European Research Group last Friday? May I especially draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Home Secretary’s suggestion that some states in a flexible Europe should be able to repatriate powers from Brussels? In that regard, could not Her Majesty’s Government give notice at the intergovernmental conference that we intend to repatriate to our country control over our own agriculture and fisheries, and make British laws superior to European laws?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I first raised the question of what subsequently became called variable geometry in Europe well over two years ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Foreign Secretary. We have no doubt that that is the direction in which the European Union must develop as it enlarges in future. In relation to fisheries, as I have said to the House before, we shall be seeking changes in the common fisheries policy in the intergovernmental conference.

    Madam Speaker: Rev. Martin Smyth.

    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: I will take the point of order after questions and statements.

    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Prime Minister’s earlier response, does he accept that it is not enough for Sinn Fein to say, “We are no longer part of the IRA” when, through its leadership, it has at no time condemned the atrocities and bombings of the IRA? It would be only in that context that anyone could have confidence in it as a qualified political party.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone would condemn terrorist outrages. There can be no justification for them. As we have made clear, we expect every party that is eligible to take part in the talks that will take place after 10 June to accept at the outset, without equivocation, each and every aspect of the Mitchell principles. That is an essential prerequisite to taking part in the talks.

    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that points of order are taken after statements, of which there are two today. The first is from the Prime Minister.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: He is not one of us.

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Moscow – 20 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Moscow on Saturday 20th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me talk about the summit and the adjacent meetings I have had during the period I have been here in Moscow.

    The summit began last evening with a fairly extensive discussion on the situation in Lebanon. I think all of you know that there is a fair amount of diplomatic activity going on, even as we speak there are a number of Foreign Ministers at the moment engaged either in Lebanon, or in Israel or in Syria, to see what can be done to bring about a ceasefire. It was our view that a ceasefire would be the first step, beyond that we need something that is going to be rather more permanent to prevent re-occurrence of the difficulties there have been over the last few days.

    We moved on this morning to the main reason for the summit being called, you will recall it was suggested by President Yeltsin when he met the G7 in Halifax last year, and that was to examine comprehensively the question of nuclear safety. And I think the fact that the G7 attended in full, with President Yeltsin, is an indication of the importance that we attach to that process.

    Many people I think were quite sceptical at the time as to whether anything would emerge from a summit of this sort. In fact there has been quite a comprehensive range of agreements, some of them very technical, many of them the subject of discussion for some time. And I am extremely grateful to Neil Hurst for the work that he has done on that over the months that have gone.

    But let me just summarise the main agreements that have been reached: an agreement to bring into force the nuclear safety convention, we have long wanted that, it has now happened; agreement to work together on a new convention on the safety of radioactive waste management; thirdly, a commitment by Russia to sign the London Dumping Convention Amendment, that is the amendment which effectively bans the dumping of radioactive waste at sea; a programme to help prevent the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, that too is something the United Kingdom has sought for some time and we are delighted to have that agreement.

    And of course also there was agreed at this summit a new impetus to the conclusion, by September we think is possible, of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which bars all nuclear explosions on the basis of a zero yield. And I know from time to time in the past there have been conflicting interpretations of what is meant by zero-yield. Let me make it clear that what we mean by this, and what I think is understood by our partners, is that no nuclear explosion of any kind, however small, is permitted. That too I think is an agreement that many people will welcome.

    Over lunch, we discussed the situation, particularly as far as Chernobyl is concerned. We emphasised our commitment to make real the programme contained in the Memorandum of Understanding that we signed with Ukraine last December, and we were joined for this particular discussion by President Kuchma. You will recall, I am sure, there are three elements to the problem with Chernobyl: firstly, there are the grants that we made available to assist with work; secondly, there is the amount of international finance that will be made available to provide alternative sources of energy, that finance is agreed, it is not yet drawn down, the Ukrainians are still determining precisely what they need to do; and thirdly, there is the question of the temporary covering, the temporary sarcophagus over the reactor that exploded. There is no additional financing agreed for that.

    At the moment there is a European Union study being undertaken. When that is concluded, which will be later this year, we will need to look at the question of funding that and how it will be done. I have little doubt that it will need to be an international effort. I don’t think it is remotely likely that the Ukrainians would be able to fund that on their own and I think post-Chernobyl no-one is seriously going to doubt the need for that work still to be done. But at the moment we still await the experts’ report on the sarcophagus. As soon as we have got it, we will be able to move forward.

    One happy development today, President Kuchma said that he would see if it was possible, and he thought that it was possible, to close another reactor at Chernobyl by the end of the year. And we spent some time also discussing alternative energy sources and the need to develop them in Ukraine and beyond.

    We spent some time discussing Bosnia, I won’t elaborate upon that discussion unless questioned, except to say that although it has been more quiescent lately, I don’t think anyone is in any doubt about the importance of making sure the civil development of Bosnia proceeds, and that is a matter to which we will regularly have to return.

    At the conclusion of the summit proper, I had a bilateral for a little over an hour with President Clinton. We discussed a range of matters: Lebanon; the importance of Most Favoured Nation status from America for China, that is important to us of course because of the impact upon Hong Kong and I discussed that with the President; we discussed also the forthcoming Commonwealth meeting concerning Nigeria and the present internal situation there; and I took the opportunity of dealing with one domestic matter by briefing the President on the present state of the legislation on Northern Ireland and the preparatory work for the elections, the forum and the all-party talks that we hope will follow the elections, and that was an extremely worthwhile occasion.

    Let me just say one thing in conclusion before we seek to take any of the questions you may have. I think it has been a very valuable visit, very valuable because of the agreements that have been signed. But also very valuable, to be frank, because it is extremely useful on these occasions, you have the opportunity of discussing in a relatively informal manner in the sidelines of such conference a range of issues with the other Heads of Government who are present, and I think that increasingly close contact is a very reassuring element of international affairs these days. Heads of Government tend to know one another far better and far more personally than ever used to be the case in the past and I think that is immensely useful.

    During those bilaterals I had specific bilaterals with Prime Minister Chretien; President Yeltsin of Course; Mr Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister; and also, as you know, a meeting last evening here to discuss the European problems of beef with the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council and the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. So we were able to take the opportunity of reviewing the situation whilst we were here. So all in all a very useful and worthwhile visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    On Ulster, we have heard that President Clinton was praising your efforts towards securing peace, and he also apparently made mention of the need for another ceasefire. Could you tell us a little more about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President has been very helpful for some time and I have absolutely no doubt at all that he will continue to play a constructive role in helping to take the process further. We do need a ceasefire. There is no immediate sign, I have to say, from Sinn Fein and the IRA that one is imminent. But I think there is no justification for them holding off from a ceasefire. For a very long time they have asked for the prospect of all-party talks, they have asked for a proper consideration of the problems of Northern Ireland. All those lie just weeks ahead. And upon that basis, to take them at their own evaluation, there is no justification for anything other than a comprehensive ceasefire so that they can join the talks that lie immediately ahead. I very much hope that they will do that. But let me emphasise again. If they do not, we will proceed without them. Sinn Fein and the IRA cannot, by not offering a ceasefire, stop the process that is now in hand, they cannot stop the elections, they cannot stop the forum meeting and they cannot stop the beginning of negotiations on 10 June. All of those things will go ahead, but of course one would like to see a ceasefire.

    QUESTION (The Guardian):

    You say that personal relationships are important. Did you feel that you advanced your personal relationship with Mr Zyuganov in your meeting with him yesterday and is Britain taking the [indistinct] that he represents seriously enough?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had an extremely good meeting with Mr Zyuganov yesterday. We discussed a range of issues. And I read with astonishment the way it was reported this morning. I don’t recall Mr Zyuganov saying to me any of the things that were reported in the media this morning and I am at an utter loss to discover how they got there. Perhaps if some of those present wrote them, they can explain to me how they got there. But I can certainly tell you they did not get there on the basis of what Mr Zyuganov said to me in the meeting that we had yesterday, in no sense did they. It was a good meeting, it was a constructive meeting. I asked him about his programme, he answered about his programme, and we discussed a range of other matters about the situation in Russia generally. But at no stage did he speak in the aggressive manner in which he is reported in the Western press as having spoken to me yesterday. It simply did not happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, obviously quite an important meeting last night.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Which meeting are you talking about?

    SAME MAN:

    Sorry! The meeting with Mr. Carl Sherak [phon] over the question of the beef ban. Do you feel more optimistic today that we are slightly closer to a lifting of the ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I think we have made progress. Of course, that wasn’t a decision-making meeting last night, it couldn’t be. Decisions are for the European Union as a whole. Self-evidently, the Agriculture Commissioner will be deeply involved in these and neither of the other members of the European Union nor the Agriculture Commissioner were present last evening but it was an opportunity to explain in a relaxed atmosphere a good deal more of how this matter is perceived in the United Kingdom and to explain some of the misconceptions, as we see them, that are, present amongst our European partners.

    What we have seen since the ban was instituted firstly by our European partners nationally and then endorsed by the European Union collectively is that the beef market has fallen very dramatically in the European countries as well. The effect of that ban on British beef, which is unjustified on health grounds, has also reflected in a collapse of confidence in the beef market amongst our European partners as well.

    I took the opportunity last night of making several things quite clear:

    Firstly, the fundamental point that there is no public health problem. The scientific advice is unequivocal, British beef is safe to eat – the view of British scientists, the view of the World Health Authority, the view of scientists in other areas as well. All the measures recommended by the scientists have been adopted by the British Government, all those measures are in place. The problem, as our European partners have skid, is one of confidence not one of public health and we have introduced measures in Britain. Those measures will involve destroying elderly animals that would otherwise have entered the market; those elderly animals are the ones that people were most concerned about, they will no longer be in the market. There is no justification for the ban in my judgement at all and the ban has a number of absurdities in it. Let me just illustrate a couple of the absurdities:

    Firstly, calves born after 1 April this year when we instituted the new controls on foodstuffs, under the ban they can’t be exported. That is nonsense, total nonsense. Those calves couldn’t possibly have been exposed to BSE in any conceivable way. I made that point to our European partners.

    Secondly, let me take another illustration. A farmer – and there are a great many farmers like this in the United Kingdom – whose animals have never eaten anything but grass, never close to any possibly contaminated feed at all, and yet they are banned and so are animals identified as coming from a demonstrably safe herd and so are animals coming from herds no members of which breeds, no member of which has ever had BSE – palpably absurd!

    I took the opportunity of running through some of those absurdities last night in the meeting we had. It was a very constructive meeting, it was not a decision-taking meeting, it was a meeting where we were all addressing a problem that now affects the whole of the European beef market, not just a British problem, and I think it was a worthwhile and constructive meeting and I think it will have played its part in helping inform people better for the decisions that will need to be taken in the days that lie ahead and I am delighted I had the meeting, I think it was very worthwhile.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    On beef, the impression we get, however, is that you didn’t receive what one might describe as support for your position. We have heard what you said to them but was there any indication that they said: “OK! Yes, we’ll take that on board and we will go back to our colleagues and recommend that because of the action Britain has now taken the ban can be lifted!”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing that needs to be done is that people have to understand the reality of what the situation is and not operate under the misunderstandings that there have been over recent weeks. I think I removed a number of those misunderstandings though I am not going to anticipate decisions that have to be taken not by the people who were here last night but by the European Union as a whole. I don’t think that would be wise, it certainly wouldn’t be prudent and I am concerned about the whole of the European Union understanding the position but let me reiterate I think it was very worthwhile having that meeting last night, I think there is a much greater understanding of what is happening across Europe. Each of the other people present of course learned what was happening in the other European countries and the collapse in beef confidence does stretch across Europe, that was apparent, so I reiterate what I said. I am not going to be drawn further on the issue. It was a worthwhile meeting, it was a constructive meeting and I think it was time very well spent.

    QUESTION (Phil Reeves, The Independent):

    Prime Minister, it is pretty plain that the Russians are continuing to prosecute a war in Chechnya despite the ceasefire that Mr. Yeltsin announced on March 31st. Did you raise this issue with him, did you discuss the question of the violation of human rights going on in Chechnya and what was Mr. Yeltsin’s response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I discussed Chechnya with President Yeltsin while I was here. He is looking to see what can be done to reach a negotiated settlement, clearly he needs to do that if it is possible. It needs two sides to negotiate was the point he made to me but he is clearly looking to see whether that can be achieved; it is desirable in order to move towards a settlement in Chechnya. He indicated to me that there were many areas of Chechnya where there was no difficulty, that it existed rather fiercely in a number of areas but in some areas it had gone away completely. I can neither verify nor dispute that, I report what the President said to me and he was certainly seeking to take a constructive role to see whether they could reach a settlement.

    I am sure that is so for two reasons: firstly, it is self-evidently the right thing to do and secondly, it is self-evidently the prudent thing to do; it would clearly be extremely helpful in the present political atmosphere if some movement could satisfactorily occur on Chechyna.

    QUESTION (Jon Sopel, BBC):

    Sir Edward Heath, writing in the “Express” today, has said that if you lost another by-election you should call a general election. Do you agree with that and if you don’t do you think you could still go the full term?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen Sir Edward’s article. Sir Edward is a very wise man and I always read very carefully what previous leaders of the Conservative Party have to say. I don’t always agree with them but I will read it when I return with some interest, but I won’t promise to agree with it.

    QUESTION:

    We have got the “Telegraph” hitting your Government with an unusually strong editorial, the “Sun” saying that you are depressed, rumours of Tories about to defect, some misunderstanding with John Redwood.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Were you present at Question Time last Tuesday?

    QUESTIONER:

    I am afraid I missed that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry you missed that because I read I was depressed but doubt many people who attended Question Time on Tuesday would have thought that was the case and as far as the “Telegraph” is concerned the “Telegraph” must write what the “Telegraph” thinks it must write, I must believe what I believe to be accurate and have no intention of commenting on what newspapers write or newspapers say, they must take responsibility for their own words.

    I will tell you what I am interested in. I am not so much interested in that; I would have a look at some of the things that are happening at the moment, some of the things perhaps that people ought to look at more often.

    I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever at the Moment that life is getting better in the United Kingdom after the recession, self-evidently so and is going to get better yet and in case you think that is a standard bit of politicians oratory – “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” – let me give you some concrete examples of why that is the case:

    Mortgage rates at their lowest level since the early 60s; I think I recall reading that the Beatles were top of the charts the last time mortgage rates were at this level, I think the song was “I Feel Fine!” and understandably so as mortgage rates fall. The proportion of new mortgages taken out by women more than doubled between 1983 and 1994, around 18 per cent, that is quite a significant change. Look at education! Huge increases in the choices and opportunities for people in the education sector. Look at changes in other peoples’ personal circumstances! 27 million people a couple of years ago took holidays abroad.

    If you look at what is happening, when can you last remember inflation below 3 per cent for the third successive year, unemployment lower that any other major economy in Europe, investment rising and growth as high as most other countries in Europe and better than almost any other country in Europe, more people in work than any other major economy anywhere else in Europe?

    I will extend the list if you like but they are I think what in newspaper parlance you call “feel good factors” and they are all becoming very apparent so if you want to know how I feel, I am delighted we have low inflation, delighted we have falling unemployment, delighted we have increasing growth, delighted we have good investment and I intend to make sure that we maintain the most benevolent economic situation we have seen for a very long time indeed and I intend very cheerfully to tell as many people as I possibly can that that is what the situation is.

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

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

    MR KLAUS:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 7 March 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hon. Members: Reading.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.

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

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

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

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

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

    “We are talking millions of footballs”?

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    So you did know in advance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangkok – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two about the meeting with Mr Hashimoto. We have an extremely good trade and economic relationship with Japan these days and in our discussions this morning we looked at the opportunities for further investment, mutual investment in trade growth, and the Japanese Prime Minister confirmed again that they continue to the see the United Kingdom as the most important centre for Japanese investment in Europe. So I found that extremely reassuring and we see the way in which the Asia-Europe is going in precisely the same way and look forward to its further development. So it was a very satisfactory meeting.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Prime Minister, are you happy or unhappy with the American decision on Gerry Adams’s visa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decision on the visa is a matter for the United States. But as I understand it, the visa is for Adams to visit the United States, there is an exclusion, there is no possibility of fund-raising and neither will he be seeing anyone senior in the American administration. So the United States on that seem to have taken precisely the same line as the British government and the Irish government.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Don’t you think perhaps that this is the time for the Americans to be showing displeasure with Gerry Adams rather than giving him favours?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I have said on every occasion in the past, whatever the American decision has been, it is a matter for the Americans and I have spelt out the circumstances in which the visa was granted, I think the other questions are for them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think they will put pressure on him, as you are putting pressure on him, to work for a resumption of the ceasefire, do you hope that Washington will do that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But the United States are doing that, the United States have been doing that continually and I have no doubt that they will continue to do it. They wish to see a ceasefire, they wish to see all-party talks begin and the have been very supportive of both the British government position and the Irish government position in that respect.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any expectation of a new statement from the IRA within the next week or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no idea whether the IRA are going to make another statement. The statement they made the other evening was wholly inadequate, as I said at the time. We will have to wait and see. But the matter is for them, it is now a matter for them to decide. The option is there – they can decide to opt into a democratic process or they can exclude themselves, but it is their decision. I would prefer them to opt in on satisfactory conditions, but if they don’t we will continue without them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Was Mr Bruton happy with your remarks the other day about the IRA Army Council’s response to the Downing Street agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would imagine he would have agreed with them, we haven’t spoken about them but I would imagine he would have agreed. He shares the same distaste for the way the IRA have behaved in recent years, as do most people.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Your backbenchers are incensed about the visa for Gerry Adams, what is your message to them? One of them at the moment is saying he can’t say whether President Clinton is either naive or stupid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said what I have to say about the visa, I have nothing more to say about that.

    INTERVIEWER:

    You are moving on to Hong Kong. What sort of reception are you expecting there? Chris Patten has had a pretty rough time over the last year or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is understandable that people in Hong Kong are concerned about what is going to happen at the change of sovereignty in 1997. I shall be seeking to listen both to what LEGCO have to say, hearing what Hong Kong opinion is and also talking to them about how the changes are proceeding and what may happen between now and 1997 and thereafter. So I look forward to the trip.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Will you have good news for Hong Kong citizens on visa-free entry to the United Kingdom and do you think Britain could cope with a large influx?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a large number of matters to discuss with people in Hong Kong but I will have to say what I have to say when I get there.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any comment on Ron Davies, the Shadow Welsh Secretary, who says the Prince of Wales is not fit to be King?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard of those comments out here. I am absolutely astonished that somebody who is in the Shadow Cabinet, and who would presumably be the Welsh Secretary in a Labour administration, can speak in this fashion, particularly about someone who cannot answer back. I think most people will regard that as a pretty distasteful way to behave.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think Mr Blair should sack him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unwilling to sack Mrs Harman for openly flouting Labour Party policy on education. I can’t imagine that Mr Davies speaks for the majority of people in the Labour Party, but that is a matter for Mr Blair. If he chooses to keep people who openly disagree with his policy, and openly disagree with what the majority opinion is of people in the country, that is a matter for him.