The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

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

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

    QUESTION:

    What do you hope will be achieved in the next 12 months?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are going to try and continue to move the process forward. That is the purpose of the twin-track arrangement and that is what we will be seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    You are aware that you are in an area which has seen some of the worst of the troubles here. Are you impressed with what you have seen this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am impressed. If one looks at these buildings, these provide opportunities for new industries, new employment, new hope to spring up. What we have seen over the last 18 months or so in Northern Ireland is much of the accumulated skills of Northern Ireland increasingly being put to use; unemployment is falling, investment is growing, there has been a tremendous change in the economic atmosphere in Northern Ireland and there is a huge tide of potential external investment that will come into Northern Ireland as soon as people are clear in their minds than the peace is here for good.

    QUESTION:

    How worried are you by the murders of this week?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They were disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. We don’t yet know quite all the details of the murders but there is no way in which that can be accepted.

    QUESTION:

    There is speculation that the IRA was involved.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have heard that speculation. It may be. I don’t know whether that is true or not. We shall have to try and find out.

    QUESTION:

    There is a feeling within the Nationalist community here that British intransigence is going to hold up the peace process. How would you answer that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have heard people talking about the peace process being held up from the very moment we began it and we have steadily moved forward. What I think has been perfectly clear when you have asked all the people of the north and all the people of the south what they think is that they have expressed a view very clearly about decommissioning. I think I saw a poll in the south as well as the north recently showing three out of four people believing that decommissioning should be started before Sinn Fein were allowed into talks and very nearly half of them felt that decommissioning should not just be started but ought to be finished, concluded, weapons entirely gone, before they entered the talks.

    If the last questioner was right and the killings over the last few days were perpetrated by the IRA, is that not the clearest indication of why is it necessary for weapons to be decommissioned to give confidence to the people of the north that that sort of behaviour is gone for good? And it isn’t just the British Government saying that, it is the people of Northern Ireland saying that and I think that view is shared by the people of Southern Ireland as well so if those talking about peace over the past eighteen months or so are genuine in what they have been saying, then they can prove that very clearly by proving that they really wish to take the gun out of politics by doing it and I hope they will.

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

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

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the Royal divorce issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    You must have something to say.

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview on Northern Ireland – 8 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Northern Ireland, held on Friday 8th December 1995.

    QUESTION:

    The Peace Process seems to have been dealt a bitter blow today. How do you react to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it’s a very intransigent message that we’ve had from the IRA overnight. I think it will need some time to determine precisely what it means. It certainly isn’t consistent with many of the messages in the past. I think most of the people in Northern Ireland – the nationalist community in particular – but the Unionists community and other governments who have been helpful over recent months will regard this as a slap in the face. There is absolutely no doubt amongst the people of Northern Ireland that they want a peace settlement. That they believe people have an obligation to come together and create a peace settlement. And I think what the IRA have said is in very stark contrast to what most of the people in Northern Ireland have made crystal clear that they want. And I think there’s a second point as well. The IRA and Sinn Fein will now have to show whether they are quite separate or not. Sinn Fein have said for a long time that they can’t control what the IRA have to say. Well the IRA have had their message. Let us hear from Mr Adams and Sinn Fein that they want peace. That they meant what they have been saying for the past year. I would very much like to hear Mr Adams denounce this attitude by the IRA. It’s a tremendous rebuff to the nationalist community and the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and I think it will receive warm support from no quarter whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    Gerry Adams has described your plans as ludicrous. Where can you go from here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Gerry Adams had better make up his mind what he wants. Is Gerry Adams the man who wants to help bring peace to Northern Ireland or is he a straightforward spokesman for a terrorist organisation who continues producing intransigent statements and putting a bottleneck in the way of peace. The people of Northern Ireland want peace. Gerry Adams is standing in the way of peace. Now he had better decide what he is going to do. There is no doubt what the nationalist community want. They want peace. There is no doubt what the Unionist community want. They want peace. There is no doubt what the British and the Irish Governments want. They want peace. So do the American Government. So does everybody else. Mr Adams wants to stand on his own and say he believes in the changed atmosphere, in the changed circumstances – that it is right for people to keep their weapons, threaten other people and to say that we will only negotiate with a pistol at the head of the other people, then let him say so honestly and clearly and not disseminate as he has tried to do over recent months.

    QUESTION:

    So who makes the next move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, the International Peace Commission will soon start its work. I think the parties will talk to it. Well wait and see what Sinn Fein have to say. Are they going to try and bring this process to an end? Or are they going to have the courage to proceed with it? This is a moment of trial for Mr Adams. Does he believe what he has been saying, or has he been trying to deceive people? We’ll soon know. I think he has an obligation to the people of Northern Ireland to participate in this process, to talk to the International Commission and to decide to make process. If there is a blockage in the peace process, it is Sinn Fein and the IRA who are blocking it. They can unblock it. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. Now we will see whether they are honest in what they have been saying or whether they are not.

  • PMQT – 30 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Why is the Prime Minister undermining the Post Office price freeze by increasing tax on the post, taking £1 million every working day and forcing up the price of stamps? Is not this yet another case of higher Tory taxes and the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

    The Prime Minister: I can see that the hon. Gentleman was very carefully rehearsed for this week’s soundbite. He should look at the record on the Post Office. If he does, he will see that stamp prices have been frozen for some time and that it is two and a half years since the last increase. That is the longest period of stability since the 1960s, and stamp prices continue to fall in real terms.

    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra resources for schools announced in the Budget are very good news? Will he also do everything in his power to encourage local authorities to ensure that that money is passed on to schools?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on two important points. The increase in resources to schools through the local authority budget will be welcome. It is also important that it is clear to parents and to schools that the money provided to the local authority settlement for education should go to education.

    Mr. Blair: Before asking my question, may I tell the Prime Minister that, on Northern Ireland, we reiterate our congratulations to all involved in the peace process? The American President’s visit to Northern Ireland today marks a moment of history in which we all rejoice. May I express the hope that these new and strong voices for peace can drown out the old cries of violence and allow everybody, not just there but here, to unite and put aside their differences and work for a common end?

    I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers the Budget, but may I ask him to withdraw the remarks made by the Conservative party chairman, who has claimed that the Budget will make the average family in Britain £9 a week better off? Will he confirm that, of that £9, almost £7 has nothing to do with the Budget but has to do with the Conservatives’ projection of wage increases next year? The real Budget figure is just over £2, and that does not take account of extra costs, charges and taxes. Is that right or wrong?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about Northern Ireland. The President’s visit to Belfast this morning was a spectacular success and everyone welcomes what he has had to say about terrorism.

    On the subject of withdrawing claims, the right hon. Gentleman, when he replied to the Budget statement, made a series of comments, the vast majority of which were specious, wrong or misleading. If he cares to examine them, he will find that those that were not wrong were misleading, and that those that were not misleading were wrong. My right hon. Friend said that people will be better off by £450 next year, and that is our expectation.

    Mr. Blair: We are entitled to an answer on this point. The claim was made that people are £9 a week better off as a result of the Budget, but £7 of it comes from earnings rises next year as projected by the Conservative party. The true Budget figure is just over £2, and that is confirmed by the Treasury press release. Is that right or wrong? If it is right, does not it show how the Tories give with one hand and take with the other–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They do not like it because it is true. If it is true, does not it also show that we can never trust the Tories on tax?

    The Prime Minister: It really is a rich day for the soundbites. After all that they have said about the Budget, it is interesting to hear that the Opposition will not vote against the Budget provisions. They cannot say yes and they will not say no; they have at best a qualified “maybe” about the Budget. My right hon. Friend said that, next year, the average family will be around £9 a week better off and that is our expectation.

    Returning to the issues of taxes and trust, does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying that he did not propose to put up taxes? Does he recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying:

    “high income levels are going to pay considerably more”

    and that there would be a higher top rate of tax under Labour? There seems to be some difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and his deputy. It does not matter if the deputy goes on shouting at me. It would be better if he stuck to the party line instead of behaving like the mouth of the Humber.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the Prime Minister what people will recall at the next election. He went into the election saying that he would never raise VAT, and he raised it. [Interruption.] They can shout, but they will never again be trusted.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I insist on the Leader of the Opposition being heard.

    Mr. Blair: They want a question. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister went into the election promising not to raise VAT and then raised it? Is that simple enough for them?

    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people will remember at the next election. They will remember a 33 per cent. rate of tax under a Labour Government and a 24 per cent. rate now. They will notice that interest rates have come down by 8 per cent. and that net disposable income is rising–and they will recall that that is not what happens under Labour Governments.

    Mr. Cash: Given the fundamental importance of NATO to Britain and western security and the fact that we are about to send 13,000 British troops to Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend consider vetoing the prospective appointment of Mr. Solana, the Spanish Foreign Minister, as Secretary-General of NATO as he has expressed views against NATO and nuclear deterrence?

    The Prime Minister: I understand from the information that I have received that that most certainly is not Mr. Solana’s view. I do not know what he may have said in the past and my hon. Friend may have seen quotations of which I am not aware, but it is my understanding that that is not his view on NATO or nuclear weapons.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister unreservedly condemn the callous actions of Tory-controlled Westminster city council in moving 100 families with 150 babies and children into tower blocks riddled with the most virulent and dangerous form of asbestos? Are there any depths to which his party will not sink in order to hang on to political power?

    The Prime Minister: On the subject of depths, the hon. Lady might address her question to the Monklands, Lambeth or Walsall councils, or to any one of many other Labour-controlled councils whose activity in local government is a disgrace.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Did my right hon. Friend read in the Sunday Express the article about the strange goings-on in the Sedgefield constituency, where the Hurworth comprehensive school is applying for grant-maintained status? Is he aware that the Labour party there is accused of campaigning on dirty tricks and misleading information to stop the Leader of the Opposition being embarrassed? If my right hon. Friend had a son at a grant-maintained school, would he feel that his constituents were entitled to the same opportunity?

    The Prime Minister: I did not read the article, but if what my hon. Friend said is correct, I am sure that the Opposition would wish to examine the matter, investigate it, condemn what has happened and ensure that such campaigning ceased immediately. Of course people have a right to a ballot on grant-maintained schools. They have a right also to have that ballot without undue hindrance, either from the local authority or from Labour Members. I very much hope that they will have that right.

     

    Q3. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Madden: As the Prime Minister is aware of the importance of prisoners in building still further confidence in the Irish peace process, will he support the early transfer, on humanitarian grounds, of Patrick Kelly and Michael O’Brien to prisons in Northern Ireland, and the repatriation of Irish prisoners to prisons in the Irish Republic–I hope before Christmas?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is the question of the health of one of those prisoners. They have both been convicted, as he knows, of serious terrorist offences. One of the solicitors involved has submitted medical evidence in support of a transfer. That matter, under the normal procedures, is being examined.

    Mr. Deva: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if a member of his Front Bench had made a statement such as was made last night by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in a public television programme, he would have fired him instantly?

    The Prime Minister: I regret any remark that has any connotation of the sort that I believe lies behind my hon. Friend’s question. I hope that it is a matter that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will clear up.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Mudie: The Prime Minister will be aware that many Yorkshire households are still facing the prospect of using standpipes and that many businesses are facing rotational water supply cuts. Given the obscene profits that were announced yesterday, will the Prime Minister join me and the people of Yorkshire in condemning the directors of Yorkshire Water both for their greed and for their incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that Yorkshire Water plans to invest £2.5 billion over the next 10 years and that it will invest more than £200 million this year for its customers’ benefit. I believe that that is double its half-year profits. I hope that that will go a long way to ensuring that the difficulties that have occurred after years of a nationalised water industry will not be repeated under private ownership.

     

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

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

    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of pensioners will welcome the new 20p rate of tax on savings? Is it not clear proof that the Government are working towards a 20 per cent. basic rate, as distinct from the policies that the Labour party is espousing, which mean that it is heading for a 30p rate?

    The Prime Minister: Given the demands for extra spending that come from Labour Back-Bench Members, there is no doubt that a 30p rate might be exceeded were there ever to be a Labour Government. My hon. Friend is right; the 20p rate is particularly good news for thousands of people with savings, especially, perhaps, for many hundreds of thousands of pensioners with savings.

    I think that it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who said a few days ago, when talking about Labour policy, that these days it amounts to little more than a marketing exercise. We saw that with the gimmick of a 10p tax rate for the allegedly lower-paid. The reality is that we are proceeding towards a lower tax rate of 20 per cent. whereas the Labour party’s spending plans add up to substantially more than the current level of taxation, whatever it may care to claim about them.

    Mr. Janner: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to look at the awful case of my constituent, Jasmine Sorabjee, aged three and a half, born in this country and ill, whom the Home Office has seen fit to deport to Kenya with her mother? Is not that a cruel, disgraceful decision, devoid of compassion that shows the disgraceful way in which the Government are abusing immigration rules and failing to exercise any compassionate concern in cases of real human suffering?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Government are not bypassing any of the immigration regulations. He knows that that is the case and he really should not have indicated the contrary. There are strict ways in which these matters are examined. They are examined with compassion.

    Mr. Janner: They are not.

    The Prime Minister: They are examined with compassion. Without any shadow of doubt they are examined with compassion. I have no details of the particular case, but the person removed from this country would have been the parent who, presumably, was an illegal immigrant.

  • Senator George Mitchell’s Comments on his Appointment – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of the comments made by Senator George Mitchell after the confirmation of his appointment to chair a body to assist peace in Northern Ireland. The comments were made at Heathrow Airport in London on 29th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Senator, can you tell us exactly what your mission now will be, what are you trying to accomplish?

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Well, I’m pleased to accept the invitation of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to chair an international body to assist in the process of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

    The communique issued by the two Prime Ministers gave the international body a specific mandate and a time frame. And it will, of course, involve the issue that’s come to be known as decommissioning. And I hope that we can make some contribution to the process.

    I think the Prime Ministers of both countries, Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton, and all of the parties deserve a great deal of credit for the perseverance and the courage they’ve shown in moving this process to this point. And we hope we can help in that effort.

    QUESTION:

    How difficult a task would you say it is?

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    I think it will be difficult because it’s obviously an issue on which there are strongly held feelings on all sides, and has been candidly substantial disagreement. But I think there is an historic opportunity here, which all much recognize as the overriding objective, a chance to see the lasting peace in Northern Ireland, I think is so important that I hope all parties will agree that we have to move forward.

    QUESTION:

    Is your mission to speak with all parties in this —

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Yes, my intention is to consult as widely as possible, to invite comments and recommendations from as many interested parties who want to participate and go through them all as fairly as open-mindedly as is possible.

    QUESTION:

    The time frame seems very short, though. You do have until, what, the end of —

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Well, it’s the middle of January we’re asked to report. It is a relatively short time. But if we get right to it, as I intend that we will, and all parties participate in a prompt and effective way, I hope we can meet that objective.

    Thank you all very much.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Clinton – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Clinton, held in London on Wednesday 29th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome the President here to London. I am delighted he has been able to come at what is I know for him an extremely busy time, and he and Mrs Clinton are extremely welcome guests here.

    The President has come to London fresh from explaining to Congress and the American people his plans for a very large United States contribution to the Peace Implementation Force in Bosnia. Bosnia is and has been for some years a shared responsibility. British troops have been there now for something over three years in numbers ranging up to 8,000 at a time. And both of our countries have made huge contributions to the international aid effort. What I think we now need to do is to carry the remarkable Dayton Agreement through to a successful conclusion. Dayton was a very hard won and hugely important breakthrough by the United States and her Contact Group partners. And for the first time in the many discussions over the years that the President and I have had on Bosnia, we can look this morning at a realistic prospect of a real and lasting peace in Bosnia. But it is still a fragile prospect and we need to make sure that it doesn’t, in some fashion, just slip away from us. And that is why we both agree that it is vital to deploy a genuinely effective implementation force to Bosnia as soon as the peace agreements come into effect.

    I very much welcome the President’s intention to contribute a large force to that particular cause. I can certainly confirm that we shall do the same, we intend to make a large contribution, around 13,000 troops would be the size of the British contribution to that force. They will find themselves working in the future, as so many times in the past, with their American colleagues in a common endeavour and I believe it is an endeavour of immense importance to the future of Bosnia and to many places beyond it. And I look forward to the Peace Implementation Conference in London in a couple of weeks time which will work on the very important civil aspects of that peace agreement.

    The President and I this morning have also had the opportunity of talking about Northern Ireland and about the twin track initiative that I launched yesterday with the Irish Prime Minister. I am delighted that the President will tomorrow become the first serving United States President to visit Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that that will give a huge encouragement to the people in Northern Ireland who have been working for peace, and I am sure that it will boost the very valuable help that George Mitchell will be giving us in his work, for he has generously agreed to undertake the work, as Chairman of the new body, to look at the question of decommissioning.

    George Mitchell of course is no stranger to the situation in Northern Ireland and over the years has given us very great help in promoting investment in Northern Ireland’s economy. So I think the Chairmanship of the international body is in very good hands and I am very grateful to Senator Mitchell for undertaking it and to the President for permitting that.

    I had the opportunity with the President this morning of discussing the present situation in Northern Ireland. What I hope people will see with his visit there in a day or so is the changed life in Northern Ireland. For far too long the world has been very familiar with the negative side of Northern Ireland. I think the President’s visit will enable him and his colleagues to see how very dramatically life has changed there over the past 15 months and we look forward to carrying that further.

    We had the opportunity of discussing a number of other matters, but I think in the limited time available I won’t touch upon those at the moment, but I will invite the President to say a few words.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. This is my sixth trip Europe as President and the latest of the many, many sessions I have had with Prime Minister Major. Europe and the United States have unbreakable ties, but the United Kingdom and the United States enjoy a unique and enduring relationship. Because of our values and the work we have done together over the last fifty years, the things we stand for are more and more becoming widely accepted all around the world. Today we discussed our on-going efforts to reinforce our partnership, to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, to combat terrorism, international crime and drug trafficking, and to advance the global march of peace. And of course we mostly discussed Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

    Let me begin by just congratulating the Prime Minister on the important initiative that he and Prime Minister Bruton announced yesterday to advance the process of peace in Northern Ireland. The twin-track initiative will establish an international body to address arms decommissioning and at the same time will initiate preliminary political talks in which all parties will be invited to participate. This is an opportunity for them to begin a dialogue in which all views are represented and all voices are heard.

    I cannot say enough to the British people how much I appreciate and admire the Prime Minister in taking this kind of risk for peace. This was not an easy action for him to take, not an easy action for Prime Minister Bruton to take. Very often people who take risks for peace are not appreciated for doing so. But we in the United States appreciate this work and hope very much that it will prove fruitful.

    Tomorrow I will visit a Northern Ireland that is closer to true peace than at any time in a generation. And the risks that have been taken to date by the Prime Minister and by the Irish Prime Minister and his predecessor are a big reason why.

    The United Kingdom has also taken extraordinary risks for peace in Bosnia. The United States deeply appreciates all this country has done to end the suffering in Bosnia – your brave soldiers who risked their lives as part of UNPROFOR, your countless humanitarian relief efforts to aid the people of that war-torn land, your diplomatic and military strength as members of the Contact Group and NATO. Now the people of Bosnia have made a commitment to peace and we have to do our part to help it succeed. That means participating in NATO’s Implementation Force, not to fight a war in Bosnia but to help secure a peace, it means implementing the arms control provisions of that agreement while ensuring that the Bosnian Federation has the means to defend itself once NATO withdraws, and it means supporting the reconstruction of Bosnia so that all the people there can share in the benefits of peace. If we can secure the peace in Bosnia and I am convinced that we can and will, that will bring us a step closer to the goal of a free, peaceful and undivided Europe.

    The Prime Minister and I discussed developments in Russia, including the up-coming parliamentary election, and agreed that fuller integration of Russia in Europe remains a key goal that both of us share. We also reaffirmed our joint determination to open NATO to new membership in a gradual and open way.

    I also welcomed the priority the United Kingdom has given to strengthen the Atlantic community. This weekend at the summit meeting between the United States and the European Union in Madrid, I hope we can agree on a vigorous Atlantic agenda that we can both work to implement.

    Let me just close by saying that we live in a time of remarkable opportunity for peace and prosperity, for open markets and open societies, for human dignity and human decency. Together the United States and the United Kingdom have helped to shape this hopeful moment in our history. We have some more work to do, we just talked about two of our biggest challenges but I am confident that our people are up to those challenges and that that work will be done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Now, the President has a speech to deliver in Parliament not very long ahead, but we can take a few questions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    President Clinton, was one of the things you discussed arming and training the Bosnian military and how will that work as part of this peace process?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, we discussed that. But in our roles as part of the NATO mission, neither the NATO forces of the United States nor the United Kingdom will be involved in that. There is an agreement among the parties that they will work for six months to achieve an arms control agreement, that they will do everything they can to agree on a fair way to reduce the number of arms in Bosnia, that if they fail to reach agreement there will be a 25 percent reduction by all the parties in the region preserving roughly the ratio of arms that exist now between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia, but at a smaller level, and that within Bosnia proper the Bosnian Federation will have a roughly 2 – 1 ratio of arms, and that that will have to be supplied in terms of equipment and training by third parties, which we are confident will occur.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson):

    Do you accept the British government’s position that there must be some giving up of arms by the paramilitaries, and especially by Sinn Fein/IRA before all-party talks can begin?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I accept the British government’s position announced yesterday in the twin-track, that is I believe the agreement reflected in what Prime Minister Bruton and Prime Minister Major announced yesterday set forth a framework within which these differences of opinion can be resolved, and I hope the framework will be accepted by all the parties. My answer to you, Sir, is that the United States, whether it is in the Middle East or Bosnia or Northern Ireland has tried to support a reasonable peace process, not to dictate the terms or make the decisions. The twin track process is a reasonable peace process and it is not for us to get into the details of the judgments that the countries and the parties will have to make.

    QUESTION:

    What broke the camel’s back on this? You have been arguing for so long on this one issue, what was the one thing that turned the tide?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were a whole range of points we have been discussing over the last few days, it wasn’t just the decommissioning issue, there were a range of other issues as well. And I think time wore away the difference, time and patience on both sides. I think the number of meetings that there have been over the last few weeks, the number of discussions I have had with John Bruton, I have absolutely no doubt both our telephone bills will be astronomical but we think it is worthwhile, it was simply that we saw that a deal needed to be reached if we were to gain the momentum and carry this process forward. We can’t deliver peace. John Bruton and I, we can’t do that.

    What we can do is facilitate peace and what we are putting in place is a process that will help to carry that capacity for peace forward. That can be achieved if the politicians in the north are able to reach themselves an agreement that this conflict is over, and what we were seeking was a mechanism of carrying this forward so that that work would continue. But I emphasise the point, peace is not in my gift or in John Bruton’s gift, it is in the gift of all the people who at present have caused the conflict. We must bring them together, constant examining of the detailed problems found a way through.

    QUESTION:

    Did the President’s trip have anything to do with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the fact that the President was coming concentrated the mind.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared to accompany the President to Belfast on any part of his trip and, like the President, are you prepared to meet all the party leaders in Northern Ireland now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have met most of the party leaders in Northern Ireland, in due course I will meet them all, I won’t be meeting them all quite yet. And I think the President is being accompanied by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I will be answering questions in Parliament.

    QUESTION:

    Is your message to the IRA that they should start surrendering their weapons and explosives now, immediately?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    My message to the IRA is that the twin track process has provided a mechanism for all the parties honourably now to bring their concerns to the table and to be heard, and that in the end peace means peace and we are all going to have to support that. But the message I should give in public is the same message I would give in private. I think the framework set out by Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton is the best opportunity I have seen to resolve all these issues and I think it should be embraced, and I think it will be.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the President has been too accommodating to Mr Adams or do you think his efforts have been worthwhile?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is a question of being accommodating at all. American support in this process has always been immensely helpful and the President has always taken a very great interest in that process. There is a communal interest in achieving a satisfactory settlement in Northern Ireland, it is very much in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland, very close to my heart and something very close to the President’s heart as well, and I welcome the tremendous support he has given both publicly and privately, I think that has been very helpful and I am very pleased to have the opportunity of thanking him for it in public.

    Thank you very much indeed.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Northern Ireland – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Northern Ireland, held on 29th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about Northern Ireland.

    Yesterday evening, the Irish Prime Minister and I met at Downing street to launch a new initiative in the Northern Ireland peace process. A copy of our joint communique has been placed in the Library of the House.

    In the 15 months since the first of the two ceasefires, there has been a dramatic improvement in the daily life of people in Northern Ireland. They have enjoyed the freedom to go about their daily business without fear of terrorist attacks. Many new jobs have been created. Much new investment has arrived. New opportunities have opened for people of all ages.

    We have responded positively–following advice from the Chief Constable and the GOC–to the much reduced threat to security. By the end of this year, half the Army’s emergency or roulement battalions will have left Northern Ireland. Security infrastructure has been dismantled. Remission rates for scheduled offenders have been returned to their pre-1989 levels.

    Although we have a ceasefire, however, we are still far from a comprehensive political settlement. To work towards that, we must establish a negotiating process that is open to all democratic parties, and embraces all democratic parties. That aim underlies the twin-track initiative that we have now launched with the Irish Government. The first of the two tracks in the joint communique will involve invitations to the parties to intensive preparatory talks.

    These are not substantive negotiations on Northern Ireland’s constitutional future; they are designed to prepare for such negotiations in the future.

    There are many issues to be resolved if substantive negotiations are to take place successfully. The preparatory talks will consider the best structure and format for all-party negotiations, and how those negotiations can address all the relevant relationships in an interlocking three-stranded process. Several of the parties in Northern Ireland have suggested that an elected body could play an important part in all-party negotiations. Other parties disagree. As the communique makes clear, this is an idea that will be discussed in the preparatory talks.

    As I have indicated, meeting the requirements of paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration will be an essential condition for any party claiming a seat at the all-party negotiations. Not all the parties yet do so. That too will be a valid subject for discussion in the preparatory talks.

    The format for those talks is intentionally flexible and permissive. We shall build on the exchanges and bilateral contacts that have already taken place. We shall treat each party equally. Exchanges can be bilateral or–where the parties so wish, and where it will further the objectives of the preparatory talks–they could be multilateral.

    This new round of preparatory talks is an opportunity for each of the parties in Northern Ireland to express its view, in whatever format it chooses, on the best way of moving the political process forward. It is an opportunity for them to work together with one or other or both Governments, according to their wishes. It is an opportunity to generate fresh momentum. It threatens no one, no interest and no party. I hope that all the parties, each in their own way, will take advantage of this opportunity. The objective of moving towards a just and comprehensive settlement will be of benefit to all.

    Let me turn now to the decommissioning of the weapons and explosives held in large number by paramilitary organisations linked to political parties in Northern Ireland. Before the Downing street declaration and the ceasefire, we recognised that the need to address this question was one of the practical consequences that had to follow the ending of violence. In a democratic society, political parties cannot be linked to private armies. In a society where parties are committed exclusively to peaceful methods, there can be no need and no justification for holding illegal weapons and illegal explosives. In a democracy, parties and Governments cannot be expected to negotiate under the duress of an implicit threat of a return to violence.

    For that reason, we have throughout this year sought to engage the representatives of both Sinn Fein and the loyalist paramilitaries in an exploratory dialogue on how their weapons will be taken out of commission. In order to achieve more progress in that area, we have now agreed with the Irish Government to establish an international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue and have given it specific tasks. It will consist of three members under the chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell from the United States. They will act in a personal capacity and on an advisory basis.

    The body has been asked to identify and advise on a suitable and acceptable method for full and verifiable decommissioning and also to report whether there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve that. We expect it to invite relevant parties to submit their analysis of matters relevant to the decommissioning issue. The Governments are not setting limits to the scope of the submissions that may be made to it. It will be for the international body, in reaching conclusions within its remit, to consider such evidence on its merits.

    We will not be asking the international body to question the Government’s position on what has become known as the third Washington criterion. It has not been established to make recommendations on when decommissioning should start. That is a matter for governmental decision; and, as I have indicated, it is properly a matter for discussion in the preparatory talks. To avoid any doubt, let me stress that the Government stand by the three criteria on decommissioning, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out in Washington earlier this year. We cannot see a way of securing the necessary confidence to bring all parties to the negotiating table without a start being made to the decommissioning of illegal arms.

    This is not a matter of dogma; it is a matter of practicality. It goes without saying that we, like the Irish Government, will consider constructively any practical suggestions that could help bring all parties into negotiations on the basis of the Downing Street declaration.

    It is no secret that yesterday’s agreement between the two Governments required long and difficult negotiations. The British and Irish Governments agree on the need for disarmament by the paramilitary organisations, but we do have an acknowledged difference of opinion about its timing. We have decided not to allow that difference of opinion to stand in the way of forward movement along these twin tracks. That is a measure of our determination to continue working together in the future as we have done in the past.

    We have asked the international body to report by the middle of January. We hope that progress on both tracks will then enable the two Governments to launch all-party negotiations by the end of February. That is our firm aim. I am confident that it is attainable, but it will require a serious commitment by all concerned. We are ready to make that commitment. But let me make a crucial point. The British and Irish Governments cannot themselves make peace in Northern Ireland. Our role in the process is to facilitate the making of that peace.

    We have borne a great deal of the burden. We have been ready to take risks for peace. Now is the time for others to do the same. Now is the time for all parties and all groups to make a sincere and constructive contribution; for the paramilitaries on both sides to give not merely qualified verbal assurances, but a real and tangible commitment to peace. If they mean peace, they do not need guns and semtex. Now is the time for all the political parties to enter the preparatory talks, not with rigid and irreconcilable positions, but with the will to make them work. Ultimately a lasting and peaceful settlement is in their hands and not mine. I hope that they will all have the courage and the wisdom to grasp it.

  • Text of the Twin Track Initiative – 28 November 1995

    Below is the text of the Twin Track Initiative, issued by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach at 10 Downing Street on Tuesday 28th November 1995.

    1. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met tonight. After intensive efforts by both Governments, and with the benefit of consultations with parties in Northern Ireland, the two Governments have agreed to launch a ‘twin track’ process to make progress in parallel on the decommissioning issue and on all-party negotiations.

    2. Both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to securing the early launch of all-party negotiations. By way of the twin tracks, the two Governments have the firm aim of achieving this by the end of February 1996. It is the two Governments’ considered view that, with cooperation from all the relevant parties in both tracks, that objective should prove achievable. Both Governments commit themselves to working, with others, to achieve it.

    3. To this end, the two Governments have agreed to invite the parties to intensive preparatory talks with a remit to reach widespread agreement on the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda to bring all parties together for substantive negotiations aimed at a political settlement based on consent. These talks will have an open agenda, allowing any party to raise any relevant matters. These matters could include how best the structure and format of all-party negotiations, involving in appropriate strands both Governments and all the relevant Northern Ireland parties, directed to addressing in a comprehensive manner all the relevant relationships in an interlocking three-stranded process, can properly take account of democratic mandates and principles, including whether and how an elected body could play a part. These preparatory talks may also extend to all steps required to establish the necessary circumstances to bring the parties together at the negotiating table in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration.

    4. In managing the process of preparatory talks, each Government will build on existing exchanges and bilateral contacts, treating each party on an equal basis; they will encourage other formats for meetings with the parties and among the parties, including meetings between the two Governments together and one or more parties, with their agreement, where these might further the objective of the preparatory talks.

    5. In parallel, the two Governments have agreed to establish an International Body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue.

    6. Recognising the widely expressed desire to see all arms removed from Irish politics, the two Governments will ask the International Body to report on the arrangements necessary for the removal from the political equation of arms silenced by virtue of the welcome decisions taken last summer and autumn by those organisations that previously supported the use of arms for political purposes.

    7. In particular, the two Governments will ask the Body to:
    – identify and advise on a suitable and acceptable method for full and verifiable decommissioning; and
    – report whether there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve that.

    8. It will be for the International Body to determine its own procedures. The two Governments expect it to consult widely, to invite relevant parties to submit their analysis of matters relevant to the decommissioning issue and, in reaching its conclusions within its remit, to consider such evidence on its merits.

    9. In establishing the Body, the British and Irish Governments reaffirm their willingness to continue to take responsive measures, advised by their respective security authorities, as the threat reduces.

    10. The two Governments have invited Senator George Mitchell to chair the Body, and will invite two other eminent persons to serve as the other members of the Body.

    11. The two Governments have asked the Body to submit its report to the two Governments by mid-January 1996. Neither Government, nor any other party cooperating with the work of the Body, is bound in advance to accept its recommendations, which will be advisory. The two Governments will consider carefully any recommendations it makes and give them due weight on their merits.

    12. To that end, and to review progress in preparatory talks for all-party negotiations, the two Governments plan to meet again by mid-February 1996.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

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

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Pienaar, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are misinterpreting what the Taoiseach said.

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Reid – RTE):

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not with us.

    1. BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

    What has changed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – SKY NEWS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    QUESTION (Same Man):

    Why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

  • PMQT – 28 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mrs. Ewing: Although I recognise the significant role that the Prime Minister has played in the Northern Ireland peace process, he will understand that there is now widespread concern at what appears to be an impasse. In those circumstances, does he feel that it is now time to establish an international commission to help the matter on?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said in her opening remarks. Naturally, I hope that we will soon be able to launch what has become known as the twin-track initiative. I had a further conversation with the Irish Prime Minister earlier today. I expect to speak to him later this afternoon. Some important points are still outstanding. It is too soon to say whether and when we might reach agreement, but some progress has been made.

    Mr. Trotter: Might I, on Budget day, remind my right hon. Friend of the massive Siemens plant which is being built on Tyneside? Is he aware that, at £1.1 billion of German money, it is the biggest investment in Europe? Is he aware that, with its planned exports of £700 million every year, the plant could have gone anywhere in the world? Is not the decision to put it on Tyneside, with the thousands of jobs that result, a tribute to and proof of the attractiveness of Britain, the soundness of the economy and the success of Government policies?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very welcome investment as, indeed, is all the inward investment that we have seen over recent years. What is very refreshing is that we are receiving inward investment not just from outside the European Union, from which we have had the bulk of inward investment into western Europe for many years, but reinvestment from one part of the European Union to the United Kingdom. That reflects our tax structure, the opportunities in this country, the fact that we are not committed to very high social costs, and the skills of the British work force.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall giving a firm pledge that, after rail privatisation, fares would be capped? How is it then that we are now told that fares on only 20 per cent. of inter-city lines and only 40 per cent. of the rest will be capped?

    The Prime Minister: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to fares rising in line with inflation over the next three years, then falling by 1 per cent. below inflation for the next four years. That is capping of fares. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when Labour was last in government– [Interruption.] Yes, Madam Speaker, it was a long time ago. It is because Labour was so appalling in government that it is such a long time ago. When Labour was in government, rail fares rose by more than 22 per cent. over and above inflation. The fact is that fares would go up again under Labour to pay for its policy of renationalisation.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister did not answer the question as to why the pledge that he gave is no longer honoured. We now know that an extra £700 million of public subsidy is going to those rail networks after privatisation and hundreds of millions of pounds is being spent in the sale. A report today suggests that the network may be sold for a quarter of its book value, which is a loss to the taxpayer of billions of pounds. In those circumstances, is it not time that, if he cannot even maintain the pledges that he has given, the sale was dropped and the network kept as a proper public service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong all the way down the line. I assume that he is getting advice from the deputy leader of the Labour party, but he is clearly wrong with all his facts. I made the point about fares rising in line with inflation and then falling. I have again made that perfectly clear to the Leader of the Opposition. As for the sale of Railtrack, there is no question of its assets being sold off cheaply–[Interruption.] A few days ago, we saw the Labour party briefing on a Budget that it has not heard. Now, we hear Labour Members scoffing at decisions that have not yet been taken. How do they know? They do not. They are in the business of trying to smear this privatisation, as they have tried to smear every other privatisation.

    Mr. Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome the news that the videotape made from recordings culled from clandestine cameras has been withdrawn from sale. Will he ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider prosecution, as the tape was illegal and uncertificated? Will he consider confiscation of the proceeds of the sale? Will he also prevent further similar events, so that closed circuit television cameras, which are a valuable weapon in the fight against crime, are not brought into disrepute?

    The Prime Minister: I will see that my right hon. and learned Friend considers my hon. Friend’s remarks.

    Mr. Ashdown: Having been fooled by tax promises before the last election, followed by record tax hikes after it, why does the Prime Minister believe that the British people will be taken in twice by his Government on taxes?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in a rather curious situation. He has consistently opposed tax increases and now opposes the possibility of tax reductions. Of course, it is a typical Liberal position to oppose one thing and oppose the precise opposite. What the right hon. Gentleman–whom we welcome safely to his place today–neglects to mention is that since I became Prime Minister take-home pay after inflation has risen by more than £600 a year in today’s prices, real disposable income is £400 a year per head higher in today’s prices and, in addition, average mortgage costs have fallen by £140 a month.

    Mr. Dykes: Further to the first supplementary question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s careful and meticulous policy on the Northern Ireland peace talks has the full, bipartisan support of all parties in the House, but none the less that there is a strong collective desire for further progress from now on? Following his previous answer, can he say a little more on the prospects following the American President’s visit to Britain and the island of Ireland tomorrow?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend had to say, further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). As I said, I hope to speak with the Irish Prime Minister again later this afternoon. I am not certain whether we will be able to reach full agreement on that occasion, but, if we do not, we shall continue at a later stage to see whether an agreement on acceptable terms is possible.

    I emphasise to the House that the agreement has to be on acceptable terms. It has to be an agreement that will lay the groundwork that would enable all parties to get together and talk in due course. There is no purpose in an agreement that will not work and will not achieve that, so we have to deal with the matter carefully. We have to consider the position of all parties who have expressed views on the matter and I will deal with it as speedily as is practicable, but only with the determination of reaching a satisfactory settlement. As soon as we can reach one, we will announce it. If we cannot, we will continue to seek one.

     

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

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

    Mr. McAvoy: A moment ago, the Prime Minister mentioned mortgage payments; but, to deal with other statistics, can he confirm that, in the five years since he took office as Prime Minister, no fewer than 320,000 families have lost their homes through repossession and that the repossession rate is running at over 1,000 per week? Is that a record of which he is proud or will he take this opportunity to apologise to those families for the misery that he caused them–or is it all their own fault?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly reconfirm the point I made earlier and also confirm the point that repossessions are falling. What is most necessary for the housing market is stable inflation and the lowest possible interest rates. We have achieved a better position on inflation than we have seen for generations and a better position on interest rates than we have seen for very many years. That bodes very well for the housing market.

    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share a sense of intrigue with me at the speech yesterday of Commissioner Kinnock in which he said that major events in Europe were unlikely to happen until well after 1999? Does he agree that this was not so much a statement of the policy of the European Commission as an indication of the state of nerves of the British Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very intriguing speech and, like every other Member of the House, I read it with a great deal of interest. I believe Commissioner Kinnock is approaching this matter with a greater clarity of vision than right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. I think what he has had to say is to have had the audacity to admit what we have been saying for ages: that Europe may well not be ready for a single currency in 1999 and that, if it is not ready to proceed without Europe being ready, that would be disastrous not just for individual countries but for every country in the European Union.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Davies: How can our nation be at ease with itself, an ambition that the Prime Minister set five years ago, when one in five non-pensioner households have nobody working?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that what one needs to ensure that a nation is at ease with itself is a range of different factors that we are now producing. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what they are: first, the smashing of the inflationary psychology and the protection of pensioners’ savings; secondly, the best economic outlook for generations, which we now have; thirdly, the largest fall in recorded crime for over 40 years, which we now have; the lowest rate of unemployment among large nations in Europe, which we now have; and a range of other factors which this Government have put in place and which no earlier Labour Government matched in any way.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend seen the news today that the Honda motor company is proposing to create 500 new jobs at its plant in Swindon? Is this not excellent news for the motor industry in this country, which was on its knees under the last Labour Government? How would the prospects for investment such as this be affected if Britain were to sign up for the European social chapter, as advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming this news. I think it is good for Britain and I have no doubt that it is good for my hon. Friend’s constituents. They join the workers of Black and Decker in Sedgefield, they join the workers of NEC in Livingston, they join the workers at BSkyB in Dunfermline, all of whom have benefited as a result of that sort of investment, and that sort of investment would not have taken place but for the success of this Government’s economic policy and this Government’s other policies.

    The reality is that signing up to the social chapter will add unnecessary cost to employers and put our record for inward investment at risk. [Interruption.] Opposition Members shake their heads, but they know that the social chapter is not a pick-and-mix option, as the Leader of the Opposition says. Once we have signed up to it, we have it; and if we have it, we might well not have those sorts of investments.

     

    Q5. Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Spellar: On the fifth anniversary of his premiership, how does the Prime Minister justify having doubled the national debt during that period?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of successive Labour Governments, he may wish to withdraw that question. He will see that we have financed our borrowing properly. The last Labour Government increased debt by an unprecedented amount.

    Mr. Wilshire: Further to my right hon. Friend’s understandably cautious replies about Northern Ireland, can he confirm that a start to decommissioning remains a precondition of all-party talks in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: Those who have read the “Building Blocks” paper which we published recently will see that it sets down specific requirements for the body’s report. It also says that the international body is not being established to recommend when decommissioning should start. That position has not changed.