The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 July 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what charges are made for the use of 10 Downing Street for charitable or other fund-raising events; and what use is made of the catering and other facilities of 10 Downing Street at such events.

    The Prime Minister : Where charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing Street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. Organisers may use the kitchens or other facilities at No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what are the rules governing the use of No. 10 Downing Street for non-official purposes;

    (2) if he will give details of the rules governing the use of 10 Downing Street for the purposes of fund raising for political parties.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : Ministers under this and previous administrations have been allowed–at their own or party expense–to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street. All catering, staff and other direct expenses must be met by the organisers of the event. Appropriate arrangements are required for security clearance.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many functions to raise money for political parties have been held at No. 10 Downing Street since 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : Under this and previous Administrations, a variety of functions have been held at No. 10 Downing Street where the costs have been met by political parties. The purpose of such functions is not a matter for the Government, but I can confirm that since November 1990, there have been no functions at 10 Downing Street at which funds have been raised for political parties, or for which tickets have been sold for the benefit of political parties.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what charities benefited from functions organised in No. 10 Downing Street in each year since 1984.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 22 and 23 June 1993] : Since November 1990, there have been a total of 25 receptions, dinners or other functions at No. 10 Downing Street for charities or voluntary bodies. The organisations concerned have been :

    NSPCC

    Surrey County Cricket Club Youth Trust

    Lords Taverners

    MENCAP

    Age Concern

    EUREKA

    Wordsworth Trust

    Huntington’s Disease Association

    Action Research

    Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust

    National Council of Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Crossroads Care

    Animal Health Trust

    ORT

    Youth Clubs (UK)

    ChildLine

    Silver Trust

    Marie Curie Cancer Care

    Excalibur Scheme

    Motability

    Westminster Foundation for Democracy

    London Community Cricket Association

    International Spinal Research Trust

    Cambridge Arts Theatre Trust – two functions

     

    Mr. Asil Nadir

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the functions attended by Mr. Asil Nadir in No. 10 Downing Street since 1984.

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister how many times in the last 10 years Mr. Asil Nadir has attended functions in No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : I understand that Mr. Nadir attended six functions in No. 10 Downing Street between 1984 and 1989. These were a dinner and a reception for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; a reception for the Harold Macmillan Trust; a lunch for the President of Turkey; and two lunches for industrialists.

     

    Vietnam

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issues of the extent of religious freedom in Vietnam, and the continued imprisonment of persons in that country for their faith, with the Prime Minister of Vietnam during his forthcoming visit.

    The Prime Minister : I intend to raise our concerns about human rights in Vietnam with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr. Vo Van Kiet, during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom.

     

    Plaques

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if inscriptions on plaques which are unveiled in the course of visits by foreign Heads of State are viewed in advance by representatives of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : We would agree in advance any inscriptions on plaques unveiled at official engagements. We would not expect to be consulted about private engagements.

     

    Republic of Ireland President

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if proposals by the person holding the position of President of the Irish Republic to visit the United Kingdom are communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by the office of the President of the Irish Republic.

    The Prime Minister : Proposals for visits to the United Kingdom by the President of the Irish Republic are communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by the Government of the Irish Republic.

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister what information he receives from the office of the President of the Irish Republic on thanks received in respect of visits by the person holding the position of President of the Irish Republic.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Heads of State

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the private visits to Northern Ireland by foreign Heads of State in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    16 December 1990 –President Robinson

    4 February 1992 –President Robinson

    22 May 1992 –President Robinson

    6-7 September 1992 –President Robinson

    18-19 June 1993 –President Robinson

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to distinguish between private and official visits to the United Kingdom by foreign Heads of State.

    The Prime Minister : Official visits are those undertaken at the invitation of the British Government.

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public engagements which have been fulfilled by Heads of State during private visits to Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    16 December 1990 – President Robinson attended the Installation of Archbishop Daly at Armagh and visited the Armagh Observatory.

    4 February 1992 – President Robinson met women’s groups at the EOC Offices in Belfast; had lunch with the Law Society; met voluntary groups and cultural traditions groups in the Linenhall library; and attended a reception in Stormont castle.

    22 May 1992 – President Robinson, as part of “Impact 92” in Londonderry, lunched with Church leaders, visited Foyle day care centre, opened “The Craft Village”, visited community groups, and attended a civic reception and pageant.

    6-7 September 1992 – President Robinson attended the “Beyond Hate Conference” in Londonderry; opened Belcoo enterprise unit; lunched with Enniskillen Rotary; and met community groups in Enniskillen library.

    18-19 June 1993 – President Robinson visited the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Down museum, and West Belfast community groups; attended the Solicitors’ Association annual dinner; and visited Coalisland enterprise centre and Ballance house, Glenavy.

    All the above visits were private. President Robinson attended each engagement at the invitation of the organisers.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister which of the undertakings given by the Federal Yugoslav Government at the London conference on 26 and 27 August 1992 have been fulfilled; what assessment he has made of changes in their policy and actions towards the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; what changes he considers to be still required; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Yugoslav authorities have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia and to resolve the problems of minorities in Croatia and Serbia. The international community is committed to the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions for their lifting have been met.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister when the question of sanctions against the Republic of Croatia was last considered by Her Majesty’s Government; and what plans he has to raise this matter again with the international community in the future.

    The Prime Minister : Policy towards Croatia is regularly reviewed in the light of Croatian Government co-operation with the efforts of the international community both to ensure a peaceful resolution of the problems in the Krajinas and to achieve a lasting and equitable peace in Bosnia. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would be initiated against Croatia if the situation so requires.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the Croatian Government have complied with its obligations, as outlined in the London conference; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Croatian Government are expected to do more to co-operate with efforts to achieve peace in Bosnia. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would be initiated against Croatia if the situation so requires.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister which of the undertakings made by the Serbian Government at the London conference on 26 and 27 August 1992 have been fulfilled; to what extent there have been changes in their policy and actions towards the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; if he will list the changes still required; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Belgrade leadership has failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia and to resolve the problems of minorities in Croatia and Serbia. The international community is committed to the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions for their lifting have been met.

     

    Unemployment, Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and the deputation representing the unemployed in Liverpool.

    The Prime Minister : I met the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside with a number of other people from the area on 16 June. I will be writing to him shortly about points raised at the meeting.

     

    Mr. Shabir Shan and Mr. Yasin Malik

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 May, Official Report, column 663, what further information he has received about the detention in India of Mr. Shabir Shah and Mr. Yasin Malik; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Our high commission in New Delhi is in regular touch with the Indian Ministries concerned, but have received no further information on the cases of Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik since receiving the aide memoire from the Indian Home Ministry which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs forwarded to the hon. Gentleman under cover of his letter of 30 June.

     

    Mr. Gazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 226, what further information he has received about court proceedings in Pakistan relating to Mr. Gazanfer Ali; and if he make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 24 June with information on the two cases involving murder charges against Mr. Gazanfer Ali. Both cases have been further adjourned.

  • PMQT – 1 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

    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. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to assure the people of Ulster that this Government are totally committed to the Union? Will he also point out to them that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has a plot to ditch them? The leader of the Labour party should either support that betrayal of the people of Ulster or sack his spokesman.

    The Prime Minister : The Union is vital for all parts of the United Kingdom. It has the democratic approval of the people of Northern Ireland and we in the Conservative and Unionist party stand four-square behind it. I am aware of the opinions that have been attributed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I believe that he has proposed “shared responsibility”, which “would have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland’s citizens.”

    Frankly, I think that that is appalling. The hon. Gentleman also complains that progress in Northern Ireland could strengthen the Union, and he certainly appears to regret that. I assume that can mean only that the Labour party has abandoned its manifesto commitment to consensus and that it wants to promote a united Ireland through economic deprivation. If those are the Labour party’s policies, they are cynical and shameful and are a betrayal of democracy and of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. John Smith rose–

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Settle down now.

    Mr. Smith : Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down and listen not only to answers but to questions, too–all of you.

    Mr. Smith : Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded of £97 million in Britain’s biggest ever tax fraud involving Nissan UK and that, during the period in which the fraud was perpetrated, Mr. Octav Botnar gave £1 million to the Conservative party, will the Prime Minister invite the Conservative party to repay that sum to the Inland Revenue?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House and the whole country will notice what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not have to say about his party’s policies for Northern Ireland. If his fundamental concept is that we should clean up British politics, I agree. We should, for a start, have rules that no donor can buy votes at a party conference, that no donor should buy votes for the selection of party candidates and that no donor should buy votes for the selection of a party’s leader. It is that sort of action, not his sort of smears, that demeans British politics.

    Mr. Smith : The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not answer the question.

    Does not the Prime Minister accept that, as First Lord of the Treasury, his principal responsibility is to the British taxpayer? Should he not be encouraging action to recover money of which the Revenue has been defrauded? Is not that a more important responsibility than defending the finances of the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, for I have told him before, that where tainted money has been provided to the Conservative party, we will replace it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now have the grace to accept that. So far as Mr. Botnar is concerned, no doubt the Inland Revenue will pursue that matter. It is a matter for the Inland Revenue.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar?

    The Prime Minister : I have no idea whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar around 10 years ago. I am not responsible for that.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to read the report by Ernst and Young entitled “Inward Investment in the 90s–Maintaining the United Kingdom’s Lead”? If so, does he agree with its recommendation that one of our main advantages–the flexibility and cost of our labour force–would be placed in considerable jeopardy if we were to accept the social protocol and that that would further undermine the country’s lead in attracting inward investment, which we need to maintain the recovery?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. Our system for encouraging inward investment is second to none. We have received far more inward investment in this country as a result of the policies followed by this Government and their immediate predecessor than any other country in the European Community. Because of those policies, we remain the preferred location for investment in the Community by Japan, the United States and many other countries. Policies of excessive social costs and excessive regulation would damage that inward investment and the jobs created by it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Beith : Will the Prime Minister, recognising the importance to the north-east and to shipbuilding in Britain of the Swan Hunter shipyard, take steps today to make it clear that the frigates that were built by the yard can be completed at the yard? Will he tell the Government of Oman that he has done that, as that would indicate to them that he is confident that the yard can complete the Omani order for which it has tendered and which would otherwise be lost to Britain?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter. I very much hope that it will be possible to complete the three type 23 frigates at Swan Hunter. The Ministry of Defence is in negotiation with the receiver. Some more detailed work remains to be done, but I suspect that those discussions will be concluded very shortly indeed. If and when agreement on the terms for completing the type 23s has been reached, I will of course ensure immediately that the Omani authorities are informed of that fact. Once Swan Hunter has found a buyer–that is one of the matters of concern to the Omani Government–and is back on a secure financial footing, there is no reason whatsoever why, among seeking other orders, it should not begin once more to tender for orders from the MOD.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Bates : Would my right hon. Friend agree that excess bureaucracy and over-regulation stifle initiative and efficiency, not only in British industry but in the police force in its battle against crime and the criminal? Is he aware of the remarks made two weeks ago by the chief constable of Dorset police when he pointed out that, for the most simple arrests, the average police officer is required to complete 23 forms and, in the most complex cases, that figure rises to 47 forms? That takes the average police officer off the beat and puts him behind a desk for half a day on average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such excessive bureaucracy exists, that the average police officer feels deep frustration about it and that it is a source of bewilderment for the public and a source of delight for the criminal?

    The Prime Minister : I did see the chief constable’s remarks and I am aware of the extent of the bureaucracy facing many officers in the police force. It is partly for that reason that we are seeking to deregulate so substantially. The whole purpose of the series of reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend is now taking forward is to ensure that we have a modern, professional and effective police force with the powers that it needs to deter crime. I share the concerns that are expressed by my hon. Friend and felt by the police force. That is why we are seeking to reform and modernise the police force, so that it can concentrate on the job that it is really there for–catching criminals, not filling in forms.

     

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Has the Prime Minister seen the report which was published this week by the Day Care Trust, which is funded by the BBC’s Children in Need, which analyses the poverty trap faced by a large number of Britain’s 1.3 million lone parents and which advocates that income spent on child care should be substantially disregarded in calculating income support or family credit entitlements? Does the Prime Minister support that proposal? Would he prefer to boost the supply of affordable child care, or does he regard child care as one of the byways of politics about which he said on Saturday he would prefer not to be asked?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of the care and the support that have gone into child care over recent years. Expenditure on families with children now totals nearly £13 billion, a rise of three quarters during the period since the Conservative Government came to office in the late 1970s. The hon. Gentleman would be better served offering support for some of those policies rather than misrepresenting other people’s reports.

    Mr. Devlin : As today is the end of the first six months of the single market which this country and the Government did so much to bring about, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to explain to the people of the north of England the benefits of the single market and re- emphasise the Government’s commitment to unfettered markets and free trade?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt, not just in this country but in countries all around the world, that free trade increases the volume of trade and, with it, the volume and levels of prosperity. We certainly see within the European Community the increasing advantages of the single market. I am delighted that it was concluded during our presidency of the Community, and I hope that the general principles of free trade will win through in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations that we are currently in the midst of.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister recognise the widespread concern and anger of people in the north-west, particularly those on low pay–such as nurses and firemen, whose pay was limited to a 1.5 per cent. increase– at pay increases that were announced by the privatised monopoly, North West Water? It increased payments to its chief executive and management by 43 per cent. in the past year and by 506 per cent. during the recession, over the past five years. Of course, they also have their share options. Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn such action by that privatised industry?

    The Prime Minister : It is not a matter for me to condemn. My responsibility across the public sector is to make sure that we retain proper control of costs, not least to ensure that we provide the services that the public want and not least to ensure that we are able to retain within the public sector the levels of employment that are necessary. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on that rather than parade yet again his politics of envy.

    Mr. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent judicial comments and public concern about the absence of a power for the courts to send persistent juvenile offenders into secure accommodation? Does he agree that it is essential for the courts to have such a power? Does he agree further that the Opposition’s refusal to support giving such a power to the courts shows that they totally lack commitment to the fight against crime and that, far from being tough on crime, they are tough only on the victims of persistent juvenile offenders–victims whom they would continue to allow to suffer?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly knows, one of the sectors in which the greatest increase in criminal statistics can be found is in crimes against property by youngsters, largely between the ages of eight and 18. It is for that reason that we are looking at the method of dealing with offenders and, in particular, finding secure accommodation for them. It is our intention to provide such accommodation.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Bayley : Is the Prime Minister aware that ABB Transportation Ltd. is the last surviving company manufacturing railway carriage body shells in Britain and that it recently announced 532 redundancies among the employees at its York works and a further 364 at Crewe and Derby ? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that situation has arisen because of a haemorrhaging of orders in the run-up to railway privatisation ? Will he do something to stop the next round of job losses, which would mean the closure of the York works and the end of Britain’s ability to build railway carriage body shells, which we should be left to import from abroad at yet further expense to our balance of payments ? When will we have more orders ?

    The Prime Minister : I find it very strange, on some occasions at the Dispatch Box, to be criticised by Opposition Members for the fact that we appear to have too large a deficit, while on other occasions I am urged to spend more and more money–usually for some particular interest of the hon. Member concerned. I regret very much the job losses at ABB. However, ABB, like every other enterprise in this country, must find its way in the marketplace.

  • PMQT – 29 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Malnutrition and Infant Mortality (Iraq)

    Q1. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is his most recent information from UNICEF about the alleged infringements of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child involving malnutrition and infant mortality in Iraq.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : No such information has been received from the United Nations Children’s Fund, but we remain in close touch with United Nations agencies about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

    Mr. Dalyell : Has the Prime Minister been briefed by the Foreign Secretary and by Sir Michael Burton about the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and Tim Llewellyn to the paediatric hospital in Baghdad, where we saw lines of infants with swollen tummies and swollen private parts expiring as a result of malnutrition- related diseases such as marasmus? Does the west have any obligation to do something for injured infants who are without pharmaceuticals or medicines as a result of the missile attack on Baghdad? Would it not be wise, for reasons that I gave to Sir Michael Burton and the Foreign Secretary, at least to hear what the Iraqi people have to say?

    The Prime Minister : I am, of course, aware of the hon. Gentleman’s humanitarian concerns and of his discussions and his report to the Foreign Secretary. However, I think that he is misguided in the way in which he attributes responsibility. To be frank with the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that it is not the responsibility of external countries that the difficulties in Iraq, which led to the devastating situation, have been brought about. We very much wish that this were not the situation. However, it is, and over recent months we have done what we could to put it right. With regard to the attack, I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman as the matter was widely discussed in the House yesterday.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of injustice about the fact that, on the only occasion this Session when I have the good fortune to be able to ask him a question on television, the BBC is showing Wimbledon on both channels? Would not the watching public be immensely encouraged to learn that we are today considering the Criminal Justice Bill and that the police are going to make fighting crime and protecting the public their top priority, unencumbered by unnecessary paperwork?

    The Prime Minister : With no disrespect to my hon. Friend’s question, I think that that is the best decision by the BBC that I have heard for some time–game, set and match to the BBC, I think. I agree with the substance of my hon. Friend’s question. What most people in this country wish to ensure is that our police service is doing the job we most wish to see it do, that is to say, not pushing paper but catching criminals.

    Mr. John Smith : Is the Prime Minister aware that it is three months to the day since the House debated the Government’s White Paper on the coal industry? Does he recollect that the public, the press and some of his own Back Benchers were led to believe that 12 pits would be saved by that White Paper? Why is it that, only three months later, three of the 12 pits face closure?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there have been severe geological problems at some of those pits, resulting in an excessive level of cost. British Coal has talked to the men about the problems. I understand that at Rufford the men voted to close the pit when the existing face is exhausted and at Markham they agreed to immediate closure. British Coal is still committed to the market-testing exercise.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand what is happening to the miners–that if they do not vote for closure they lose redundancy payments? Does he not understand what is happening in the market? British Coal is now offering coal at a knock-down price which would give the consumer much cheaper electricity than he or she could get from any other source. If the two privatised generators still will not buy at that price, does that not prove that the market is rigged against coal and that, if it goes on, pit after pit will close and will shall lose a vital industry?

    The Prime Minister : The reason for taking the decisions on coal some months ago was to make sure that there is a viable industry that can continue in the future. It will be a smaller industry than once it was, for it has been shrinking in size year on year over the past 30 years. That is a fact of life which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I and every hon. Member well understand. It is the market for coal which will determine the size of the industry. The Government have made it clear that they are willing to provide a subsidy to help the deep mining industry secure supplementary coal to generators at world prices. That was and is the position.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not remember clearly that the House was led to believe that 12 pits would be saved as a result of the White Paper? Why does he not come clean and admit that the White Paper was a fraud and is now exposed as a fraud? Is it not a perfect example of the style of the Prime Minister and his Government that they produced a White Paper for 36 hours’ publicity, which has not survived for three months in the real world?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps have observed what Mr. Scargill had to say at lunchtime when he said :

    “The Labour leadership is more interested in opinion polls and images rather than principles and real policies.”

    Miss Emma Nicholson : During his busy day, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read the letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in The London Literary Review, in which he gives inaccurate medical information on the state of child health in Iraq? Will the Prime Minister remind the hon. Gentleman that United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 of August and September 1991 authorised Iraq to export $16 billion worth of oil to buy medicines over a six-month period but that those arrangements have never been implemented?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that particular letter, but my hon. Friend is quite right about the proposition that has been available to Iraq for well over a year whereby it could export oil and, in return, have medical and other equipment. The Government of Iraq–Saddam Hussein–chose not to take up that option. For that reason, he is primarily to blame for the present difficulties in treating people who are sick and ill in Iraq.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House and to the many pensioners lobbying Parliament today that the Conservatives have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on tax relief to the wealthiest members of Lloyd’s, while continuing to persist with their policy of putting VAT on gas and electricity? Does he appreciate that that is typical of the present Government?

    The Prime Minister : It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the position. The fact is that the success of Conservative policies over the years has enabled pensioners’ incomes to increase by 30 per cent.–37 per cent. net of housing costs–since 1979. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps remind himself, and tell others, which party tried to cut the Christmas bonus, cut spending on the national health service, failed to uprate pensions and let inflation get out of control and wreck the savings of millions of pensioners.

     

    Q5. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : I share my right hon. Friend’s approval that Wimbledon is monopolising all channels, but, in the context of the necessary review of public spending, may I ask for an assurance that there will be a rigorous clamp-down on all those who are claiming benefit on fraudulent grounds at the expense of those most worthy of help in society, to whom benefits should be targeted?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. I assure him that the Government will honour their pledges to uprate state retirement and child benefits and so protect the most vulnerable in society. I also assure him that those who try to defraud the benefits system will find it increasingly difficult to do so. They will come up against a Government anti-fraud policy which expects to net savings of nearly £1 billion this year. We want those resources so as to make sure that they are available for those who need them most. I make no apology for protecting taxpayers from those who seek to abuse the system.

     

    Q6. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Dr. Jones : In view of the revelations at the trial of Christopher Clunis, who stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito, will the Prime Minister accept that although most people suffering from schizophrenia are not dangerous, the failure of the Government’s care in the community policy means that dangerous mentally ill people are walking the streets? What does he intend to do about that, and will he now order a public inquiry into the case and its implications for community care, as requested by Mr. Zito’s widow?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady may not know it, but the care in the community policy has been a cross-party policy in the House for many years. Everyone is deeply sorry to hear about that tragic case, and I have deep sympathy for Mrs. Zito and the other relatives concerned. Nevertheless, I am sure that our community care policy is right for the patients concerned. It is right to encourage them generally to lead as independent a life as possible away from large-scale institutions. To that end, we now devote spending of more than £2 billion per year, and we have increased it substantially to ensure that the resources devoted to it are able to meet the problems which exist.

    I have to say to the hon. Lady that picking out a tragic case such as that in the way that she did does no credit to her.

     

    Q7. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only leading country in Europe experiencing economic recovery? Will he further confirm that while other countries in the European Community languish in recession, our economy has low inflation, falling unemployment, low wage settlements and the highest growth rate in Europe? Does he agree that that is good news for British business men and exporters and will help the nation to get roaring forward again economically?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is good news for everybody, with the possible exception of some Opposition Members for whom good news is extremely bad news. Britain was the first country in Europe to go into the recession ; it is now among the first to emerge. Although conditions abroad throughout the Community may be difficult for some time, the Community itself and others are now forecasting that we shall have the highest growth rate in the Community this year and the highest growth rate again next year.

    Mr. Molyneaux : Have Her Majesty’s Government given any commitment to the Labour party’s proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland, as set out in the documents published this morning?

    The Prime Minister : The first I heard of the apparent proposals by the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland was when I read that astonishing story in The Guardian this morning. I have no means of knowing whether The Guardian story is right or wrong. I hope that it is wrong, but, as Opposition Members seem to have questions planted upon them by The Guardian, it does not seem unreasonable to me that they may plant their policies upon The Guardian themselves. I can only say that that policy, if it is the policy of the Labour party, is a recipe for disaster. If it is true, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will request the resignation of his spokesman this day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the obligation to tell the people of Northern Ireland whether or not that is the policy of the Labour party.

    Mr. Brandreth : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on literally flying the flag in support of Manchester’s Olympic bid? Does he agree that the bid is bringing more money, more jobs and more prestige to an area of this country which is already world class?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that hosting the Olympic games in Manchester would be good for the north-west, good for Britain and good for the Olympics. That is why the Government are determined to do all that they can to back Manchester’s bid to bring the Olympics here for the millennium. We have provided full support for that bid. I was delighted to welcome the International Olympic Committee to Downing street yesterday. I shall be meeting the president of the IOC next month, and I look forward to going to Monte Carlo to help to promote the bid in September. The Olympic games which mark the year 2000 will have a special significance and I want to see those games here in Britain–in Manchester.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Albert Reynolds – 16 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held in London on Wednesday 16th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Afternoon. I will invite the Taoiseach to say a word or two in a moment just by way of introduction, and then we will take a few questions from you.

    I think, as you know, we agreed sometime ago to have twice annual summits. On this occasion we have met here in London, we agreed today that we would meet towards the back end of the year in Dublin and I very much look forward to that.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing firstly bilateral matters, those discussions will continue over dinner, we have not yet discussed detailed matters relating to Northern Ireland and security, those discussions will occur over dinner in a few moments. We have had the opportunity of an in-depth discussion on the European Community summit and a range of matters beyond that.

    I think there are no substantive differences between the Taoiseach and I on the agenda for the European summit, we expect we are going to deal with employment prospects across Europe, we look forward to discussions about subsidiarity, about a number of foreign policy matters, Bosnia of course and possibly even Somalia and Sudan which may well be the subject of discussion at the European summit, we certainly expect to deal with enlargement and the agenda that I think is fairly well laid out before us and has been for some time.

    I am not expecting any substantive surprises at the summit over the next few days and neither is the Taoiseach. The discussions that we will have on the future of employment prospects in the Community will not be discussions that we anticipate will lead to immediate decisions in the Community, I think there are to pick six people’s minds on the importance of Europe becoming competitive not just within Europe but competitive as Europe with the United States, with the Pacific Basin and with Japan and we spent some time discussing those particular matters. Rather than go into the details of the whole range of matters we discussed, leave it to you ask questions if you wish to later, after the Taoiseach has made a few remarks.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I think you have adequately covered the extent of the discussions which have taken place already and of course we look forward to the resumption of talks over dinner tonight, especially in relation to Northern Ireland. In relation to the up-coming summit, I agree with the Prime Minister that we do not expect any areas to develop that will cause either of us any great problems, I think we see the major issues to be discussed and hopefully point to the future direction of policy and how to tackle the very serious unemployment situation throughout Europe. It is now a problem for every member state. As you know, we have very serious unemployment problems in Ireland but then indeed so has every other member state, so I think it is time that we came to grips and point in the future policy directions as to how to tackle that particular problem.

    I think the decisions of Europe will be looking towards Copenhagen for that type of discussion, the type of discussion of issues that affect ordinary citizens’ lives and of course now that we have the Maastricht Treaty almost completed I think what they will be looking forward to is for the Community to settle down and to implement what we have agreed in the Maastricht Treaty.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just let me add one thing. We have not discussed the substance of security and related matters in Northern Ireland but we did have a very preliminary discussion and I should perhaps make it clear that we would both like the talks process to continue and to deepen, we think that is the right way ahead in the future, we do continue to believe that its objectives are achievable. The next phase of course will involve further bilateral contacts to try and identify as much common ground as possible between the participants to the talks and I hope I need not say that the British and the Irish governments will work closely on the substance, in particular of Strand 3. I say that simply to set out the fact that those general parameters have been discussed prior to more detailed discussions over dinner.

    QUESTION:

    You talk about the objectives of the talks being achievable, what are the objectives of the talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We want to make sure that we can actually reaffirm in Northern Ireland the sort of democratic structure that most people would wish to enjoy, those are the early objectives of the talks. There is a great deal of talent in Northern Ireland that is not actually exercising itself in terms of local government in any way at all, now we need to examine that, that is the first ground clearing exercise, we have to build from the ground upwards, that is the purpose of the three-stranded approach and of course Strand 3 is a bilateral approach between the governments.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I just want to add that both governments are committed to finding the ways and means of resumption of talks, we are fully committed to the three strand process, we believe that it is the way forward in relation to it and we want to resume the talks on the basis that we had them on 1 March 1991 where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and of course in particular the third strand between the two governments, we will be looking at ways and means between ourselves as to how we can make our contribution towards a resumption of those talks, to which we are both fully committed.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The most obvious point of course is the shared wish to see an end to the violence. Now that is a shared wish not just between the Taoiseach and with me, that is a shared wish I think amongst the overwhelming majority of people in both parts of the island of Ireland. So if one wanted to have an objective, that of course is the most immediate objective in everyone’s mind.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    It is the first objective indeed that I set myself out when I took over the job of Taoiseach, that there were two objectives I had and one was to find a formula for peace in Northern Ireland which will create the environment for talks to take place on the future and how people can learn to live together and work together for the betterment of all.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Smith has said that Mr Paisley should not be allowed to hold a veto on the resumption of the talks, if all the other parties agreed to go ahead, he said, they should go ahead without Mr Paisley, do you agree with this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am in the business of getting all the parties together for talks, I do not think it is of help in bringing the parties together to get those talks started for me to indulge in public exchanges about what one participant of the talks should do. The substantive matter is that I want the talks to continue, I want everybody to take part in the talks and I am not going to engage in public badinage that might make that more difficult.

    QUESTION:

    Was the [Indistinct] Commission discussed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not discussed it yet, it may turn up later.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current assessment of when it may be possible to resume the talks on Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I could not give you a date at the moment, I would like the talks, and I think the Taoiseach would share this view, though he will speak for himself in a minute, I would like the talks to resume as speedily as possible. I think perhaps more important than the fact that I would like the talks to resume as speedily as possible, I think all the people who live in Northern Ireland, whichever community they come from, would like to see the politicians talking again so that they can begin to seek to resolve these problems. I hope that will prove to be possible, we will certainly do all we can to ensure it is.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I believe the political leaders on all sides are looking to the politicians to make whatever contribution is necessary to re-start the talks process and I look forward to hearing from Sir Patrick tonight on the results of his meetings with political leaders so far and to then make an assessment, an evaluation of how both governments can contribute to the resumption of the talks process.

    QUESTION:

    There seems to be a certain impatience in Northern Ireland among people who think that devolution should be re-established first and should be built from the bottom up and that tying it to strands 2 and 3 is delaying a return to democracy of which the Prime Minister spoke.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you had lived through the last 20 years in Northern Ireland – forgive me, you may have done, I do not know – but anyone who has lived through the last 20 years in Northern Ireland has a right to be impatient. But I think what we have to build is a structure that is going to last. We are approaching that in the way we think is most likely to achieve that end, that is why we believe we need to go through the stranded approach to talks so that we can carry consent. Above all, what we need in Northern Ireland is an end to the violence and consent for the developments that have been made, and it is upon that basis that we have approached the talks in this particular way. But as to people feeling impatient, I fully understand and sympathise with that.

    QUESTION:

    But is there a blueprint being prepared by Sir Patrick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by a blueprint. Of course the Secretary of State is examining how we take the matter forward and how we encourage the talks to go forward, but I do not know quite whether one would call that a blueprint.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] for the British and Irish government to lean on the local politicians to get them to accept not only to come to the talks but to accept a settlement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One man’s leaning is another man’s persuasion. We are seeking to persuade all the participants to return to the talks, that is the way to reach a lasting settlement in our view.

    QUESTION:

    Are you taking Mr [indistinct] advice in asking the Taoiseach to do something about removing Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic’s constitution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going into my private discussions with the Taoiseach, I am keen to make sure that we look at all the elements of getting a proper settlement and that is the Taoiseach’s view too, but I am not discussing that in public.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I think there should be an appreciation, there are many hundreds of thousands of people out there who live normal lives, who want to continue to live normal lives, there is quite extensive bridge-building between the two communities, we want to encourage economic cooperation between the north and south and this is a way to demonstrate to people how they can live better together, how they can work together to improve the lot of both communities in the North of Ireland and I think that has its own contribution to make. In relation to the overall talks process, we are quite clear that we do not want to condemn the future generation in the North of Ireland to another 23 – 25 years of violence which they have suffered up to now, we think there is marvellous resilience in the community up there to continue to live ordinary lives and we want to use the opportunity, and any opportunity we can get, to try and first of all find a formula for peace up there and then hopefully to get people to talk together.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see a difference in principle of the union between England and Scotland and England and Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the principle of consent. We have always made it clear in terms of Northern Ireland that no changes in the position of Northern Ireland could be obtained without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. And as I have said in speeches in Scotland up to and during the general election, you need to retain the consent of people in Scotland for the union, so that is I think a similar position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think your meeting today would raise hopes in Northern Ireland of an improvement in the security situation because surely that is uppermost in the minds of most people?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Taoiseach and I have known one another over many years, both as Ministers before he became Taoiseach and I became Prime Minister, we are used to doing business together, we have done business together in more than one capacity over a number of years. These meetings are regular meetings, they are not emergency meetings, they are not crisis meetings, it is one of a whole series of regular meetings that have gone on for a while, I instituted them a couple of years or so ago, they are going to go on continuing. I think the community of interest that exists both in the European Community, beyond the European Community and in terms of Irish matters make it absolutely right that we should have these twice yearly summits.

    I do not want people under any of these summits to suddenly develop unrealistic expectations, if we have learned anything about the history of Ireland as a whole it is that patience is a virtue and patience is a necessity. So nobody should reach unrealistic expectations. Of course we will discuss security matters, we always discuss security matters and we rarely talk about security matters beyond our private discussions, I am sure that we will discuss them later tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you both how you expect the European Community to respond to the renewed impatience from President Clinton and his avowed support for arming the [indistinct] and indeed air strikes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is nothing fresh to say, you know the British government’s position about that, it is as it was. I am sure the European Community summit will spend some time discussing Bosnia in all its aspects.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I think we are all horrified by what we see on our screens every day of the week in relation to Bosnia and I think everybody knows that the view of the Irish government, the view of the British government, in relation to it and undoubtedly it will be discussed at the summit and hopefully we will be able to contribute to some way forward in the whole sad tragic situation of Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    Was the question of a visit by The Queen raised or discussed?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Have you had a chance to read Sir Edward Heath’s comments on the security situation where he said that you needed to lift the issue of terrorism higher on the political agenda, appoint a senior Cabinet Minister as a terrorism supremo and introduce a centralised counter-terrorist agency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share with Ted Heath the importance of the issue, I do not share with him the way in which we should deal with the issue. It is very high on the agenda, it could scarcely be higher on the agenda and it will remain there.

    QUESTION:

    You talk about the need to get the parties around the table again, Sir Patrick Mayhew is talking to them to try and do that, how do you yourself think that they can be persuaded to get back into negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You might have asked me that question before they began negotiations and you would be right to, you would say how are you ever going to get these people to sit round the table together, they never have done in the past? But we have crossed that Rubicon, they have sat round the table, they have made progress, they have made far more progress sitting around the table in discussion, parties that had never previously done that, than anybody realistically expected. The advent of the local elections in Northern Ireland and other matters have broken that continuous discussion for a while. I think it is a matter of persuasion and patience and I think we will get them back round the table. You ask me precisely how, if I knew precisely how, I would have done it last week, but that can be done I have no doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Is it conceivable that new devolutionary arrangements for Northern Ireland will provide a role for Dublin or Brussels?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For Brussels, no I do not think so. We have got to continue, we have a process, I do not think it is at all helpful to start inventing fresh processes when we have a process in being, it undercuts the work that is being done and there is work being done, we have got a process, the Taoiseach and I would like to see that process reactivated. Both of us are entirely clear that that is the right way for us to proceed. So no I do not think an intermediary from any external source is likely to be helpful.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, the people in Northern Ireland, go and talk to the people in Northern Ireland, not just the politicians, go and actually talk to the people in Northern Ireland, it does not matter whether you talk to the Protestants or whether you talk to the Catholics, go and ask them whether they want another 20 years like the last 20 years and they will tell you ‘No’. Go and ask them whether they would like the politicians to be talking and they will tell you ‘Yes’. Ask them whether they want to actually see the end of violence from whatever source it comes and they will say ‘Yes’. We all have to try and deal with that cry from the heart and I think that is a good reason for optimism.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    That is exactly the message that I get from my own contacts on both sides in both communities in the North of Ireland, they want to see all the political leaders, both north and south and the British government and the Irish government all involved in the talks process. They recognise that the road to violence is a cruel one, it is the road to nowhere and that there are so many families up there, they have been hooked by this, they do not want to inflict that on their children. Remember now at this stage that we have young people in the North of Ireland, 21 years of age, they were born into violence, they have not known anything else.

    We certainly have a responsibility and both of us recognise that to try in every way we can not to inflict that type of lifestyle on the next generation and for the next 25 years we do not want to see that type of violence extend into the families of people in Northern Ireland and we are going to use every initiative that we can think of to try and change that situation and get people talking which is what people in Northern Ireland want them to do.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of Strabane Police Station – 7 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the opening of a new police station at Strabane, made on Wednesday 7th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how pleased I am to be here today and to see this remarkable station opened. It is nice to have had the opportunity of being a small part of it and I am very grateful to Tom and to Paddy Mayhew for making sure that that was possible.

    I am grateful to all of you for being here as well today at a time where I believe a lot is happening in Northern Ireland. I spend a great deal of my time, perhaps more I suspect than many of you realise, thinking and talking and wondering about the particular problems and the particular opportunities, for I do not always believe we should talk about problems, that actually exist in Northern Ireland.

    Let me just say a word or two about that that I profoundly believe. For more than 20 years now, far too long a period, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered violence. That is a very long time indeed and after so long I think there are some dangers that we need to guard against. We need to guard in particular against the danger that violence will become to be accepted as a natural way of life, we ought never to accept that. There is a danger that people will give up struggling against it, that they will lose hope in their efforts to stop it, that they will cease to believe that we can solve Northern Ireland’s problems by constitutional means.

    If people did believe that, if there were people who for a millisecond were tempted to believe that, I suspect the events of the last three weeks must have shaken that feeling. The tragedies we have seen here and the tragedies we have seen on the mainland in England I believe have shocked people into thinking afresh about the situation. Those tragedies have sunk into the national consciousness in a way that many other events perhaps sometimes do not. They fuelled a demand for an end to what most people perceive as the defenceless slaughter that you have had to endure in Northern Ireland for too long.

    Moods can be transitory. There have been times in the past when people have come together, only then to fall apart, times when they have made very determined efforts which for one reason or another have not yet then succeeded. I do not believe we should be discouraged by that. I do not believe we can afford to be the prisoner of past failures. Surely, in the light of the progress made in the talks over recent months, in the light of the events of recent weeks, surely now is the time for everyone who is concerned about Northern Ireland to think again about its future, its prospects and the way in which we secure a firm, peaceful future for all the people who live here.

    Let me set out for you what that means for the British government. It means several things. It means absolutely no reduction whatsoever in our willingness to confront terrorism. Our opposition to terrorism remains implacable and will do so for as long as terrorism exists. Bringing it to an end is our first priority in Northern Ireland and we will continue to be totally unrelenting in pursuit of those who plant bombs, who maim, who intimidate, who trade sectarian murders or who attack the security forces.

    Nor does it mean that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland can ever be overridden. We have given our guarantee and no-one should doubt that guarantee. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as that remains the wish of the majority of people who live here. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that reflects the will of its people, we support that and we will continue to defend it.

    Those are not casual points, they are fundamental points of principle for the British government, they are widely supported, they do not stand in the way of progress. What they do, I believe, is to define how we move forward.

    So how do we move forward? Where does progress lie at present? I believe the way ahead is clearer than many people may imagine. Self-evidently, the people of Northern Ireland want tranquillity, they want peace, the people of the Republic of Ireland want peace, the people of Britain want peace, they are calling for it, they are demonstrating for it and no-one should doubt the depth of the feeling that exists in every part of the United Kingdom.

    We have heard some very fine words, moving words, over the past three weeks and they are very welcome. But let me say something about that. I think that people in Northern Ireland want, expect and deserve more than moving words from their political leaders. They surely want their leaders, all of us, to take action, to assume responsibility, to have the courage to show flexibility. We already have a vehicle for dialogue. Much was achieved in the talks initiated by Peter Brooke and carried forward by Paddy Mayhew. But the participants to those talks have not met since last November. I have to say to you today, that delay has been far too long. The dialogue between the constitutional parties and the British and the Irish governments must be resumed and the sooner it is resumed the better it will be.

    And when it is resumed, when people talk again, the participants must be prepared to move away from entrenched positions, there must be a greater willingness on all sides to show flexibility in return for flexibility. And in this context I have been encouraged by recent statements about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution and I welcome, without reservation, such readiness to contemplate constitutional change in the context of an overall settlement.

    I spoke, and I spoke deliberately, over the last few minutes of the constitutional parties. There are those who stand in the way of that progress and our position on them has not changed at all. Those who use violence for political aims exclude themselves by their own actions. And if they wish to be taken into account, the choice lies entirely in their own hands. They must demonstrate, they must demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who are rightly sceptical that they have turned their backs on violence clearly, unequivocally and irrevocably. They can do that, but only they can do that, and I hope that they will.

    I have spoken also in the last few minutes of what I believe the people want. But there is I believe another vital element to peace and it is this. Steadily, without great fanfares, significant progress is being made to heal divisions in the community. Far too little acknowledgement has been given to the remarkable amount of work that has been done by many people, often unknown, often unsung, over the period of the last few years. But that work is valuable, it is changing the hearts and minds of people who live in every part of the Province and it is affecting the instincts and feelings of people who live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

    The government has played its part, it has legislated to remove discrimination for example in employment matters. It has adopted the toughest such law in Europe and I can promise you today that it will continue by all the means at its disposal to seek to develop greater trust between the two parts of the community to lay the widest possible foundation for progress at the constitutional level.

    I want the dialogue, the dialogue between the constitutional parties and the two governments, to be resumed as soon as possible. So, I know, does the Irish government. So, I believe, do the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State and I will therefore be proposing an early start to further talks, involving the four parties and the two governments. When they talk we will put proposals before the participants. We must press ahead.

    There are, I believe, grounds for hope. People are repelled by violence and I believe also that they are frustrated, deeply frustrated, by political stalemate. There is an opportunity at the moment to catch the mood, to achieve a political accommodation. We must ask today for everyone involved potentially in those talks, for everyone in the community to have the courage to take the opportunity that may exist in the hope that those talks can move forward and end the political stalemate and the difficulties that people have faced in this province for so long.

    Let me just end with this thought. Every time I come here to Northern Ireland and I have the opportunity to meet people, not just the opinion-formers, but often people who express just their own personal private view when I meet them, I am struck by several things. I am struck by their optimism about the future for this part of the United Kingdom, I am struck by their courage, I am struck by the determination that they have to safeguard the things of value to themselves, to safeguard the matters of interest to themselves. Those family matters – education, health – all those things that affect families in every part of the United Kingdom, they want to sweep aside these troubles that have laid so many difficulties upon the people of Northern Ireland and have distracted so much from the opportunities that exist in Northern Ireland over the last 20 – 25 years.

    I said a moment or so ago there was an opportunity, it is an opportunity for the people, for the people to make it clear to the politicians that they want progress and an opportunity for the politicians to listen to what they are saying, perhaps to take the risks that are necessary, to have the courage to show the flexibility that is necessary to see if we can move from the past impasse that existed for so long and build on the success of the talks over the past two years or so.

    Do not under-estimate what has already been achieved, but what has already been achieved is a beginning, it is a springboard to what still can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and all Ireland. Those are the opportunities that lie ahead for us. If we look at those opportunities I hope we will have the courage to take them.

    Being here today, looking at this remarkable building, and I congratulate without reservation those who conceived it, those who have built it and those who work in it protecting from ordinary crime and extraordinary crime the people who live in this area.

    When one sees this one sees the changing circumstances of Northern Ireland and the opportunities that exist for the future, I would simply say this. I am pleased to be here today, I am proud to be here today and I look forward to coming back again at some stage in the future when I talk to you just about the domestic problems that you face and no longer have to talk to you about that dark shadow of terrorism that has hung over this province for so long. When I come back on that occasion that will be an especially sweet visit and I hope it will not be too long delayed. Thank you for your hospitality today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of Strabane Police Station – 7 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the opening of a new police station at Strabane, made on Wednesday 7th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how pleased I am to be here today and to see this remarkable station opened. It is nice to have had the opportunity of being a small part of it and I am very grateful to Tom and to Paddy Mayhew for making sure that that was possible.

    I am grateful to all of you for being here as well today at a time where I believe a lot is happening in Northern Ireland. I spend a great deal of my time, perhaps more I suspect than many of you realise, thinking and talking and wondering about the particular problems and the particular opportunities, for I do not always believe we should talk about problems, that actually exist in Northern Ireland.

    Let me just say a word or two about that that I profoundly believe. For more than 20 years now, far too long a period, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered violence. That is a very long time indeed and after so long I think there are some dangers that we need to guard against. We need to guard in particular against the danger that violence will become to be accepted as a natural way of life, we ought never to accept that. There is a danger that people will give up struggling against it, that they will lose hope in their efforts to stop it, that they will cease to believe that we can solve Northern Ireland’s problems by constitutional means.

    If people did believe that, if there were people who for a millisecond were tempted to believe that, I suspect the events of the last three weeks must have shaken that feeling. The tragedies we have seen here and the tragedies we have seen on the mainland in England I believe have shocked people into thinking afresh about the situation. Those tragedies have sunk into the national consciousness in a way that many other events perhaps sometimes do not. They fuelled a demand for an end to what most people perceive as the defenceless slaughter that you have had to endure in Northern Ireland for too long.

    Moods can be transitory. There have been times in the past when people have come together, only then to fall apart, times when they have made very determined efforts which for one reason or another have not yet then succeeded. I do not believe we should be discouraged by that. I do not believe we can afford to be the prisoner of past failures. Surely, in the light of the progress made in the talks over recent months, in the light of the events of recent weeks, surely now is the time for everyone who is concerned about Northern Ireland to think again about its future, its prospects and the way in which we secure a firm, peaceful future for all the people who live here.

    Let me set out for you what that means for the British government. It means several things. It means absolutely no reduction whatsoever in our willingness to confront terrorism. Our opposition to terrorism remains implacable and will do so for as long as terrorism exists. Bringing it to an end is our first priority in Northern Ireland and we will continue to be totally unrelenting in pursuit of those who plant bombs, who maim, who intimidate, who trade sectarian murders or who attack the security forces.

    Nor does it mean that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland can ever be overridden. We have given our guarantee and no-one should doubt that guarantee. Northern

    Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as that remains the wish of the majority of people who live here. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that reflects the will of its people, we support that and we will continue to defend it.

    Those are not casual points, they are fundamental points of principle for the British government, they are widely supported, they do not stand in the way of progress. What they do, I believe, is to define how we move forward.

    So how do we move forward? Where does progress lie at present? I believe the way ahead is clearer than many people may imagine. Self-evidently, the people of Northern Ireland want tranquillity, they want peace, the people of the Republic of Ireland want peace, the people of Britain want peace, they are calling for it, they are demonstrating for it and no-one should doubt the depth of the feeling that exists in every part of the United Kingdom.

    We have heard some very fine words, moving words, over the past three weeks and they are very welcome. But let me say something about that. I think that people in Northern Ireland want, expect and deserve more than moving words from their political leaders. They surely want their leaders, all of us, to take action, to assume responsibility, to have the courage to show flexibility. We already have a vehicle for dialogue. Much was achieved in the talks initiated by Peter Brooke and carried forward by Paddy Mayhew. But the participants to those talks have not met since last November. I have to say to you today, that delay has been far too long. The dialogue between the constitutional parties and the British and the Irish governments must be resumed and the sooner it is resumed the better it will be.

    And when it is resumed, when people talk again, the participants must be prepared to move away from entrenched positions, there must be a greater willingness on all sides to show flexibility in return for flexibility. And in this context I have been encouraged by recent statements about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution and I welcome, without reservation, such readiness to contemplate constitutional change in the context of an overall settlement.

    I spoke, and I spoke deliberately, over the last few minutes of the constitutional parties. There are those who stand in the way of that progress and our position on them has not changed at all. Those who use violence for political aims exclude themselves by their own actions. And if they wish to be taken into account, the choice lies entirely in their own hands. They must demonstrate, they must demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who are rightly sceptical that they have turned their backs on violence clearly, unequivocally and irrevocably. They can do that, but only they can do that, and I hope that they will.

    I have spoken also in the last few minutes of what I believe the people want. But there is I believe another vital element to peace and it is this. Steadily, without great fanfares, significant progress is being made to heal divisions in the community. Far too little acknowledgement has been given to the remarkable amount of work that has been done by many people, often unknown, often unsung, over the period of the last few years. But that work is valuable, it is changing the hearts and minds of people who live in every part of the Province and it is affecting the instincts and feelings of people who live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

    The government has played its part, it has legislated to remove discrimination for example in employment matters. It has adopted the toughest such law in Europe and I can promise you today that it will continue by all the means at its disposal to seek to develop greater trust between the two parts of the community to lay the widest possible foundation for progress at the constitutional level.

    I want the dialogue, the dialogue between the constitutional parties and the two governments, to be resumed as soon as possible. So, I know, does the Irish government. So, I believe, do the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State and I will therefore be proposing an early start to further talks, involving the four parties and the two governments. When they talk we will put proposals before the participants. We must press ahead.

    There are, I believe, grounds for hope. People are repelled by violence and I believe also that they are frustrated, deeply frustrated, by political stalemate. There is an opportunity at the moment to catch the mood, to achieve a political accommodation. We must ask today for everyone involved potentially in those talks, for everyone in the community to have the courage to take the opportunity that may exist in the hope that those talks can move forward and end the political stalemate and the difficulties that people have faced in this province for so long.

    Let me just end with this thought. Every time I come here to Northern Ireland and I have the opportunity to meet people, not just the opinion-formers, but often people who express just their own personal private view when I meet them, I am struck by several things. I am struck by their optimism about the future for this part of the United Kingdom, I am struck by their courage, I am struck by the determination that they have to safeguard the things of value to themselves, to safeguard the matters of interest to themselves. Those family matters – education, health – all those things that affect families in every part of the United Kingdom, they want to sweep aside these troubles that have laid so many difficulties upon the people of Northern Ireland and have distracted so much from the opportunities that exist in Northern Ireland over the last 20 – 25 years.

    I said a moment or so ago there was an opportunity, it is an opportunity for the people, for the people to make it clear to the politicians that they want progress and an opportunity for the politicians to listen to what they are saying, perhaps to take the risks that are necessary, to have the courage to show the flexibility that is necessary to see if we can move from the past impasse that existed for so long and build on the success of the talks over the past two years or so.

    Do not under-estimate what has already been achieved, but what has already been achieved is a beginning, it is a springboard to what still can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and all Ireland. Those are the opportunities that lie ahead for us. If we look at those opportunities I hope we will have the courage to take them.

    Being here today, looking at this remarkable building, and I congratulate without reservation those who conceived it, those who have built it and those who work in it protecting from ordinary crime and extraordinary crime the people who live in this area.

    When one sees this one sees the changing circumstances of Northern Ireland and the opportunities that exist for the future, I would simply say this. I am pleased to be here today, I am proud to be here today and I look forward to coming back again at some stage in the future when I talk to you just about the domestic problems that you face and no longer have to talk to you about that dark shadow of terrorism that has hung over this province for so long. When I come back on that occasion that will be an especially sweet visit and I hope it will not be too long delayed. Thank you for your hospitality today.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 26 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made on 26th March 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the situation in Northern Ireland]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are seeing, and it has been very dramatically illustrated after the events of the last few days, is the intense revulsion that exists right across the spectrum in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland against the activities of the terrorists. I think there is a spirit, a movement, a belief that these people are evil and that their cause does not justify the way they behave. I think that is spreading. The attitude and feelings amongst the people of Northern Ireland has increasingly been moving towards the need to find a secure and peaceful settlement. That is very attractive and I hope it continues.

  • PMQT – 23 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Inward Investment

    Q1. Mr. Wells : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to lead an overseas visit by a group of business men to obtain overseas inward investment or export orders.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I hope to visit Japan in the autumn, accompanied by a delegation of senior British business men. My ministerial colleagues also take every opportunity to promote Britain and British business abroad. They are planning to lead at least 14 trade missions to 17 countries in the next year covering markets as diverse as Asia, Africa and the far east.

    Mr. Wells : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the signal honour paid to him in being invited to India to take the Republic Day parade, on his flexibility in reorganising his schedule at the last minute to pay a visit to Saudi Arabia with business men accompanying him, and on obtaining a £4 billion order and securing 21,000 jobs, many of them in Hertford and Bishop’s Stortford. Does he agree that, with the Budget increases to export credit guarantees of £1.2 billion and the favourable exchange rate, there are many more opportunities for our exporters to increase jobs and opportunities ?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The measures announced in the Budget will provide further export cover and cheaper export cover and that is on top of the changes previously made in the autumn statement. They will certainly help United Kingdom firms to win more business abroad and secure more jobs at home.

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth : Is the Prime Minister aware that the non- European Community deficit rose in February to £1.3 billion ? Does he realise that photo opportunities and the ongoing pretence will not solve the basic problem in the British economic system ? When will he tackle the real issues ?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means about photo opportunities. I should have thought that 21,000 jobs and many billions of pounds worth of trade were a good deal more than that.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mrs. Browning : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.

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

    Mrs. Browning : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most unfair that every household in my constituency is having to pay nearly £9 extra on the council tax because Liberal Democrat-controlled Torbay council and Labour-controlled Plymouth city council have set artificially low collection rates this year of under 92 per cent? If those councils cannot collect the rates, why should payers in Conservative-controlled East Devon have to pick up the tab?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I can see no practical justification for the low collection rates set by Torbay and Plymouth. They are unfair to the council tax payers and they are unfair to council tax payers throughout Devon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not need reminding that for a band C property, Labour councils will cost the council tax payer £100 extra. For 6 May, the answer is clear–vote Conservative.

    Mr. John Smith : Following the massive tax increases announced in the Budget for this year, next year and the year after, will the Prime Minister tell us whether there are any more tax increases in the pipeline?

    The Prime Minister : This, of course, is from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had plans to increase tax by £35 billion in his shadow Budget. I made it absolutely clear last week in the House that we do not like raising taxes and we do so only when necessary. The Labour party raises taxes because it wishes to spend other people’s money on their behalf. We do it only when necessary.

    Mr. John Smith : Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is he who has just raised taxes. Why on earth should anyone in this country believe what he says about future taxation when last week he broke clear pledges not to put VAT on gas and electricity and not to increase national insurance contributions? He made those pledges before the election. He broke them a year later.

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment ago, we increased indirect taxes because we felt that we had to in the interests of the economy. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said,

    “in good times the Tories will hope to cut taxes.”

    So we will and that is what the public expect of us. But perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain how he would honour his manifesto commitment to increase child benefit and pensions if he would not put up taxes and he would not increase borrowing. Either he cannot add up or he has broken every single manifesto promise that he set out. Which is it? Is he innumerate or without principles?

    Mr. John Smith : On the question of principles, does not the Prime Minister understand that this shameless Budget has put at issue two fundamental questions : first, the credibility of the Government and the Prime Minister himself, which is now in tatters; and, secondly, the deep unfairness of putting large increases on ordinary families to pay for his Government’s mistakes? Does he not now realise that whatever he says about taxation in the future, no one will and no one should ever believe him?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s noble Friend Lord Desai has called for all zero-rate items to be subject to the full rate of value added tax–not just fuel, but transport, books, children’s clothing and food. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate that policy expressed by his noble Friend–the Labour party’s economic spokesman in another place?

     

    Q3. Mr. Brandreth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.

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

    Mr. Brandreth : In the light of Friday’s debate on tourism, will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the British tourist industry in general and the hoteliers of Chester in particular on taking full advantage of a competitive pound to bring good business to Britain and the best business to Chester? Of course, good news for Britain is very bad news for the monomaniacs of misery opposite.

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to congratulate the British tourist industry on something like 18 million visitors to the United Kingdom last year. I have no doubt that, with the present competitive exchange rate, that figure will be well exceeded this year by the excellent British tourist industry in all parts of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Jamieson : Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing our condolences to the parents and families of the four teenagers in my constituency who lost their lives yesterday in a tragic canoeing accident in Lyme bay? Will he ensure that the appropriate Government Department puts in place a full inquiry into how the tragedy took place and in particular why it took almost four hours for the emergency services to arrive on the scene?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly join my hon. Friend, as, I am sure, will every hon. Member in the House. Our hearts go out to the parents of all those who died in that tragic incident. I think that it would be wrong, at the moment, to speculate on the causes of the tragedy before the necessary inquiries have been completed. Local inquiries are under way already. The primary responsibility for safety in outdoor school activities lies with the local education authority, or the governing body in the case of grant-maintained schools. In this case, of course, it is Devon local education authority.

    I must emphasise that there is no evidence at this stage that the necessary precautions were ignored. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to consider any action necessary by his Department in the light of this tragic event.

     

    Q4. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : My hon. Friend will be aware that leading members of Sinn Fein have said that they find it very difficult to justify any atrocities as bad as the one at Enniskillen in 1987.

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that what limits the power of the Provisional IRA is both hard security and what their supporters are willing to tolerate? Will my right hon. Friend join me and people throughout these islands, in Ireland as well as in the United Kingdom, in condemning the kind of action that can kill a three-year-old and substitute bombs and bullets for arguments and for votes? Will he call on all people to try to persuade those still directing the violence to end it now?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that decent families everywhere will have been sickened by that cold-blooded attack on innocent people going about peaceful business on a spring Saturday lunchtime. Even for the IRA, that attack plumbed the depths. To take the life of an innocent child in that fashion and to wreck other lives is absolutely unforgiveable. It was, quite literally, an evil act, made more evil in my judgment by messages deliberately designed to confuse those people who should have helped to prevent that incident from taking place. That behaviour has done one thing : it has provoked revulsion and determination that violence will not prevail.

    I can assure my hon. Friend that no effort will be spared, within the rule of law, to bring the people responsible to justice. If there were a shred of humanity in the IRA they would hand over those killers for justice without delay. If they do not, as I fear they will not, I hope that they will know that we shall hound them for the rest of their days until we find them and punish them.

    Mr. Hume : I agree with the Prime Minister and my constituents, who know exactly what the people of Warrington have experienced, will join totally with what he has just said.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is its public housing authority, has transformed public housing there over the past 20 years, in difficult circumstances, to the point where the Governments of the emergent democracies of eastern Europe are now coming to learn from them? Why have the Government begun the process of privatisation of that public authority and laying off the direct labour force, thus leaving unemployed people who are held in such high respect in our society? Given that his Government make so many efforts to reach agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland and that we are totally agreed on the subject, will the Prime Minister respond positively by keeping the housing executive and its direct labour force in existence?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about the disaster at Warrington. The whole House knows that he has had direct experience of these matters in the past and speaks with a special knowledge of the matter.

    So far as the housing executive is concerned, the proposals made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State are made precisely because he believes that responsibility can be better carried out in another fashion. It is for that reason and for none other that he has proposed those changes.

    Mr. Allason : My right hon. Friend will be aware that water rate payers in Torbay and in the rest of the south-west are facing increased charges of up to 16 per cent. in bills coming through their letter boxes this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of this increase is due to a European directive? Will he also undertake to ensure that representations are made in Brussels to delay the implementation of the infrastructure investment that is being demanded of South West Water and is being put before the charge payers in the south-west?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend may be referring to the bathing water directive, which is, among other things, very important for the tourist industry. The essential reason for the very high bills in the south -west and in some other areas–and, as my hon. Friend will know, I am examining those at the moment–is the sheer scale of the investment in water and sewerage services which, frankly, was not made over the past 30 years in the public sector.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.

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

    Mr. Ernie Ross : The Prime Minister will have seen the disturbing scenes outside the Timex factory in my constituency yesterday. He will know that this has become a bitter dispute following the sacking by the management of 343 hourly paid employees. Those workers, many of whom are women, have 20 or 30 years’ service to the company. That dispute went through the Government’s employment legislation to the letter. I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I have asked the Secretary of State for Employment and the Leader of the House to intervene personally, given that those workers have lost their jobs following the Government’s employment legislation. Will the Prime Minister now intervene and ask the company to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to settle this dispute now?

    The Prime Minister : I note from the reports that none of the people arrested in the scenes at Timex yesterday were workers from Timex. I believe that the ex-convener at Timex said that those dismissed

    “never called for a sit-down demonstration and do not sponsor violence.”

    It seems that rent-a-picket is back and I do not think that that is in the interest of the Timex workers. Workers who choose to go on strike have always faced the risk of being dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal. That was the case under legislation enacted by the last Labour Government.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 24 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Wednesday 24th February 1993.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I want to formally welcome Prime Minister Major to the White House of the United States, we are delighted to have him here. As I am sure you know, he has already met earlier today with people on the Hill and with members of my Cabinet. We have just finished the first of two meetings, we talked for about an hour and then this evening we will have a working dinner.

    About the conversations we have had so far, I would just like to make two points: first we covered a wide range of topics, we talked about Bosnia, as you might imagine we would, we talked about the Middle East. And then the rest of our time was spent virtually exclusively talking about economic matters, about the upcoming meeting of the G7, about the importance of trying to get an agreement under GATT and my commitment to that, about the absolute necessity of the United States, Europe and Japan working together during this difficult time to try and prevent a contraction of the global economy and instead hopefully to promote growth not only here at home but throughout the world. And we talked about that in some considerable detail.

    The Prime Minister, as you know, has been in office a lot longer than I have and I asked him for his advice about a number of things and his opinion about others and we had a very very good meeting and I am looking forward to our dinner tonight.

    The second point I would like to make is to reaffirm something that some of you asked me during the photo op, and that is whether the United States will continue to have a very special relationship with Great Britain. The answer to that, from my point of view, is an unqualified ‘Yes’. I think that only two Presidents ever lived in England, I think I am one of only two, there may have been more somewhere in past centuries, but it is a very important relationship to me and I think it is off to a very good start. And I would like to say again how much I appreciate the candour with which the Prime Minister has approached the issues on which we discussed our mutual interests.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, firstly thank you for your welcome today and I have found out meeting extremely useful and I look forward to continuing this evening. And I certainly had some very useful meetings this morning on the Hill and with other members of your Cabinet earlier this morning, with Lloyd Bentsen and of course over lunch as well with some of your colleagues. It is nice, having had a number of telephone conversations over the last few months, to actually see a face across the table rather than just hear a voice across the ‘phone and I look forward to continuing that dialogue this evening.

    You set out some of the things that we were able to discuss over the last hour or so. I was particularly pleased we were able to reach such a meeting of minds on the importance of reaching an agreement to the Uruguay Round as speedily as possible. I think we share the view that for a raft of reasons it is important to get a satisfactory and fair agreement to the GATT Round, not just because of the impetus that will give to trade growth and hopefully to prosperity and job growth as well, but also because of the very remarkable advantage that will give not just to the industrialised but to the non-industrialised world with the many difficulties that are faced economically at the moment. So I was particularly pleased at our meeting of minds on that particular subject.

    We found also a complete agreement about the need for the Security Council resolutions that have been imposed in respect of Iraq to be fully met and to be fully honoured in the future. I had the pleasure of being able to welcome the President’s initiative in humanitarian air drops in Bosnia. The United Kingdom have got a number of thousands of troops actually delivering humanitarian aid in central Bosnia, they have been doing that for some time. I think as a result of their activities many people who otherwise might not have lived through this winter have done and I think this new initiative by the President is thoroughly welcome.

    So it has been a very worthwhile and a very enjoyable meeting thus far and I look forward to continuing it this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me answer that first question. If the United States can in some way make a constructive contribution to a political settlement, of course we would be interested in doing that, but that is not a subject we have discussed in any way so far and I think I would rather wait to make further comments until after we have had a chance to discuss it.

    As far as the campaign is concerned, the campaign is over, you are a good one to answer that question since you know that compared to previous campaigns I have been in this was just sort of another day at the office and once you achieve the responsibilities of office, this is what you have to do. I told the Prime Minister today that I was just grateful that I got through this whole campaign with most of my time in England still classified.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me deal with the air drops first. General Powell came over here last weekend and we talked for a very extended period of time about this operation and about how we can maximise the safety to United States’ pilots and other personnel on the planes who would be involved in this and to minimise the prospect that any humanitarian relief operation could be drawn into the politics and the military operations of this area. We know that if we are high enough to virtually assure the complete safety of the people who will participate in the airlift that a percentage of the packages we drop will be outside the more or less half mile circle that we will be trying to hit. We also know that if we leaflet the area in advance, if we notify the people about what we are dropping and how to use the medicine and what kind of food will be there, to whatever extent the people need it they will be on the look-out for it and if they have to walk a mile instead of half a mile for it, we think they will. So we believe that (a) there is a need in some of the remote areas and (b) we can do this with quite an effective but safe mission.

    Insofar as other actions, I think there are a number of things that we are looking at. I am encouraged by the United Nations’ interest in the war crimes issue, I am encouraged by the conversation the Prime Minister and I had about the importance of trying to make the sanctions that are now in force actively be more effective. But I would remind you that our policy is that we want to try and have a good faith in negotiations with all the parties there, we are committed to doing what we can to encourage the Bosnians to engage in negotiations within the Vance/Owen framework and President Yeltsin has been very forthcoming on his part in trying to help get the negotiations back on track too.

    So I think we should look at it just from that point of view. It would be a great mistake to read this humanitarian relief operation as some initial foray towards a wider military role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add something to that, as you requested? We are able at the moment to deliver a substantial amount of aid in central Bosnia by land but the natural terrain of Bosnia as a whole means that is not practicable for a raft of reasons, not least geographical reasons, at the moment in all parts of Bosnia. I think therefore you do have to look at imaginative ways of actually getting food aid and medicine aid through and I think the prospect that the President is exploring is an imaginative one and I hope it will prove successful. On sanctions, one of the things we have been discussing in the last half an hour or so is the prospects of enhanced sanctions and I think there clearly are opportunities there that we will need to examine. I think we can improve the sanctions over the Danube, for example, I do not think they are being enforced very effectively.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think President Yeltsin is weakened by his present conflict to the extent that he is not going to continue, clearly there are difficulties in the disputes he has had with Congress and in particular the Speaker, but I expect President Yeltsin to be there and to continue, I think he is the best hope for the Russians and I think the policies and the movements towards reform that he has in mind and continues to have in mind are the right ways forward. I think there are two things we can do to help Russia in general and President Yeltsin, one is the economic assistance that has been provided, and there is a great deal of discussion to be had about whether we are directing that in the right way and in the right volume, and secondly I think also there are the political messages of support to the reformers and to the reform policies, personified at the moment in the person of President Yeltsin but the underlying purpose of the assistance is to assist the reformers and to assist the reform policies in Russia. I think we ought to give them political support as well as the practical and economic support that we have been giving them.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that President Yeltsin has not been paralysed by what has happened, I support him and his role and he is trying to do. I have not established a definite date for a meeting with him yet but I do hope to meet with him soon, personally. I know he is having some trouble with his Congress but that is part of being in a democratic society with an elected President [indistinct] what it is like in our system. I do not want to minimise that but I think it is a grave error to assume that he cannot continue and do well, I believe he can. And I think that in terms of what we ought to be doing about it, I think the Prime Minister has pretty well laid out the kind of political and economic support we ought to be giving but let me say that as all of you know, I have placed a great priority on this. The State Department will now have an Ambassador at large whose job it is to coordinate a response not only to Russia but to all the republics of the former Soviet Union and we have a very distinguished American, Thomas Pickering, nominated to be our Ambassador. We have put in a lot of effort into trying to support democracy and trying to support economic recovery there.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are going to ask for an extension of fast track authority and we are going to put a real effort into a successful conclusion of the Round. I advocated that in 1991 at the beginning of my race for President and I still feel very strongly that it is important.

    The press response around the world to the economic plan I presented to Congress has been very positive because our trading partners have been asking us for years to make a real effort to reduce the debt and so we are doing that. I think that sparks hope not only here at home but around the world and I think if we were to successfully conclude the Uruguay Round that would also spark hope that we will be expanding trade on terms that are fair to everyone so I am very hopeful that we can get a trade agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We haven’t discussed Northern Ireland at all and after we do I’ll be happy to answers your questions.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    All I can tell you is General Powell has been asked to design the mission in such a way that we would minimise risk to our folks and we have obviously engaged in an extensive consultation, which is not over, [inaudible] has been asking me every day when I was going to make this announcement. The consultations aren’t over and one of the things that we want everybody to know is that this is a humanitarian mission and we are prepared to help anybody who needs the food and medicine and we want the broadest possible support for this and we want all the people on the ground and the various factions to know that this is not a political issue with us.

    We are very encouraged by the responses we have gotten so far from all the elements with whom we have discussed this plan. That is all I can tell you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is a great deal to add. As I indicated earlier, there is a twin-track approach. We are providing aid by land, the President has in mind aid delivered by air to areas we can’t reach by land. I have no reason to suppose that that is going to put at risk the lives of the British soldiers in Central Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding fighter capability].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You asked the question. I have given the judgement I make.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We talked about the importance of adhering to the United Nations Resolution as they apply to Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and about our general support for the peace process continuing. We didn’t deal with that issue and I think I ought to wait until the Secretary of State returns from his mission before I discuss it further.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding consultations on Bosnia and any other countries becoming involved other than the US].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, we might have some other countries involved. The Prime Minister has made his statement. I think he has done his part. His troops are on the ground there but I think there is a chance that we will have support from other nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that has to be negotiated between the parties and I don’t think I’m going to express a view on whether that is the right map. I think the process of seeking a negotiated settlement and trying to reach by agreement between the three parties an agreement on the map that will enable a political settlement to be reached is the right way but I don’t think it is for me to judge whether the map is right. Clearly, the view of the participants at the moment is that the map isn’t right but that is the purpose of negotiations; that is why I was delighted to hear this morning that Karadzic and Izetbegovic will be joining talks again with Boban so that they can actually talk to Cy Vance and David Owen and see if they can reach an agreement.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    The only thing I would say just to add to that is that I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. As you know, the United States feels very strongly that this agreement must be just that – an agreement; it must not be shoved down the throat of the Bosnians or anyone else if it is going to work.

    We also feel strongly that all the parties should negotiate in good faith and therefore I agree with what he said about the map but I would make this further point: the United States has made clear in our statement of policy that if an agreement is reached in good faith we would be prepared to be part of a NATO or a United Nations effort to monitor or support the agreement and that map would be difficult to support I think but before we make any final judgements we need to give the parties a chance to reach their accord.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    What I said was that I have invited the members of the Congress to present them to me and instructed our people to continue to look for them and I presume as we define things that we are willing to put on the table we will continue to do it. We don’t have any orchestrated theory about how to do that now but I’d be surprised if there aren’t some more comments.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is an agreement over the degree of subsidies for projects like Airbus and that agreement continues until July and I think there is no proposition in what the President said to change that particular agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you said you may discuss Northern Ireland this evening. Would you expect to discuss both the peace envoy issue and the human rights issue and do you share the view expressed by some members of Congress that Senator [indistinct] suggested that there are abuses of human rights in Northern Ireland that need to be addressed and perhaps the Prime Minister would like to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will address that point first. The real abuse of human rights in Northern Ireland is the abuse of human rights of people who find bombs in shopping malls when they are going about their ordinary everyday business. I think that is the abuse of human rights that is overwhelmingly the concern of everybody in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide.

    Over the past two or three years, the British Government with the Taoiseach and the political parties in Northern Ireland have been engaged in talks to try and find a political settlement to a problem that has existed in Northern Ireland for generations. We are seeking that agreement. Those talks I believe it is fair to say have made more progress than most people believed was possible. The talks came to a halt with the general election in the Republic of Ireland and the forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland but it is the policy of my Government to resume those talks with all the parties in Northern Ireland to try and reach a satisfactory political settlement and remove many of the disputes and hatreds that have existed for generations. Those disputes and hatreds are worsened by violence, whether it is the IRA violence or whether it is the response to IRA violence which has also been prevalent over the last year or so. I condemn both unreservedly and without any distinction.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that obviously there has to be a political solution there or there will be no solution at all and that the human rights issues will have to be addressed in that context. Whether the United States can play any sort of constructive role is something that we want to discuss later this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think you have to expect that there would be some trouble and the Senate Minority Leader can say that but he was here during the last twelve years when other Presidents and the Congress quadrupled the national debt. I am trying to do something about it, turn it around and go in the opposite direction. The survey showed that a big majority of the American people support my initiative. The response from people in governments around the world has been almost uniformly positive that American is trying to change the nature of its economic policy, reduce its debt, increase investment in high-growth items and I never expected this to be easy. This is a fundamental change; I don’t expect it to be easy but I hope that I will be working with Senator Dole and with others to bring it to a successful conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada. We had a very nice conversation which was mostly personal and I thanked him for his kindness to me and he assured me that his country would continue to work with me and that he would personally until his tenure in office was over. I wish him well. He seemed to be a person who had worked through this and was very much at peace with himself today.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just answer that point as well. I regard Brian as an old friend and a good friend. I shall miss him. He has been a very good friend of the United Kingdom and a very good friend of the Commonwealth so I am sad to hear of his decision today but it must be his decision. I wish him well in the future and I look forward to seeing him in the United Kingdom in a few weeks time.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think from time to time distinguished visitors from the United States in Northern Ireland have come back to the United States and they have actually explained the remarkable changes that have taken place in Belfast. There was a delegation that was there recently and the reality is that anyone who knew the place ten years ago and knows the place today will see there is an absolute and total sea change and I think there is a greater knowledge about the will for peace amongst people in Northern Ireland, especially the ordinary people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide. The more that is understood the better and what is actually needed in Northern Ireland to help speed that is more understanding of the process, more support for the talks, more investment for job creation and less money to fund terrorism and the more people know about that, the nearer we come to a solution.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Worthington : In 1979, just over 1 million people were unemployed. At the same time, just over 7 million people were employed in manufacturing industry–seven people in manufacturing jobs for every single person unemployed. Now, measuring unemployment in the same way, there are 4.25 million unemployed. On Thursday this week– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. He knows that he must put a direct question.

    Mr. Worthington : In the past 14 years, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. Did the Prime Minister intend to do that, or was it someone else’s fault?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that “the threat of recession and the reality of rising unemployment is spreading throughout the European continent” –not my words but those of the Leader of the Opposition. I would find the hon. Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment, but he has not.

    Mr. Wells : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Nissan factory in Sunderland has been declared by its Japanese owners to be the most efficient factory in the world? Is he further aware that should this House be foolish enough to include the socialist charter in the Maastricht treaty, Japanese inward investment would be seriously discouraged?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of the specific point made by my hon. Friend, but I was aware that Nissan is exporting cars from Sunderland back to Japan. I offer my congratulations to the management and work force on that achievement. There is no doubt that the social chapter and similar policies would damage the prospect of such success stories in future. That is why we opposed it at Maastricht and why we oppose it now.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that the House should be able to decide whether Britain should accept or reject the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : It is for this House to decide by its vote on Third Reading whether to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and enable the Government to ratify the treaty. There is no question of our ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. Individual amendments to the Bill will be debated in Committee in the usual way as for others.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that the Government announced their latest interpretation of the law only yesterday, and as other amendments apart from amendment No. 27 have been ruled out of order, is not it a curious coincidence that the prospect of political defeat causes a revision of the legal opinion? Why are the Government so anxious to prevent the House from deciding this issue?

    The Prime Minister : There are two sorts of amendments that we have to deal with in the Bill. There are those that would render our law incompatible with the treaty and which must be defeated, and others that are undesirable but which would not prevent us from ratifying the treaty. The Committee will come to those, issue by issue.

    Mr. John Smith : Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame? Today, he was described in The Times as being like a

    “spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer”.

    — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : Why is the Prime Minister so determined to use every slippery manoeuvre to avoid Parliament deciding this issue? Is he not engaged in an outright abuse of our unwritten constitution?

    Mr. Skinner : Vote against Third Reading and we’ll show them. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : Occasionally, it might be a novelty to see the hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Sharp lawyers in glass houses should not throw stones in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. The Government are explaining to the House what the true effect of an incompetent Opposition amendment would be.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East claims repeatedly to support the Maastricht treaty, but he and his hon. Friends tabled an amendment which was intended to lead to amendments to the treaty, a new intergovernmental conference and new ratification procedures in the member states. Opposition Members were prepared to put at risk the future not just of the Bill but of the entire treaty. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who accuses us of sharp practice when he claims to support the Bill.

    Mr. Booth : Would the Prime Minister express the feelings of the whole House by praising the fine British achievement in the Antarctic by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Dr. Stroud? Does he consider that that is an example of volunteering for a good cause which he was advocating earlier this year?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to offer my congratulations and those of the House to Sir Ranulph. It shows that if one keeps going one will get to one’s objective.

     

    Q2. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Smyth : Could the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Clinton, assure him of our good wishes but at the same time urge him to resist moves to appoint a peace envoy for Northern Ireland since those who advocate it are partisan in their opinion?

    Does the Prime Minister accept that the best way to promote peace in Northern Ireland is the continued curtailment of funds and support for terrorism with an intensive education course for United States citizens, especially those of Irish republican sympathies, to enable them to understand that Northern Ireland is not a colony but part of the United Kingdom by choice of its citizens?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a considerable effort by the United States Government and a number of leading American politicians to curb the flow of funds from the United States and to co-operate with us in bringing terrorist criminals to justice. I welcome that very much.

    I hope and expect the new American Administration to continue to support the political dialogue established over the past two years. I believe that it offers the best hope of reconciliation and is fully consistent with Northern Ireland’s position, as the hon. Member said, as a part of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Paice : My right hon. Friend will recall that the last time that inflation was 1.7 per cent. he was just 25 years old and I was even younger. He will also recall that the then Labour Chancellor stated that inflation was the mother and father of unemployment. Is it not the case that with low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation and high productivity, Britain is best placed to recover from the recession ahead of all the other countries in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect ; I believe that I was 24 at the time and not 25. But the fall in inflation in January was excellent news in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying rate of inflation. It provides the best possible basis for recovery in output and employment. We now have the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century and a rate below that of our colleagues in the Community and below the G7 averages. We have the lowest interest rates in the Community. We have mortgage rates at their lowest since 1956 and external surveys show that the United Kingdom will be among the fastest growing economies in Europe both this year and next year.

     

    United Nations

    Q4. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to visit the United Nations headquarters in New York in the near future.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government’s support of the United Nations is highly selective and that there is absolutely no case for the Government continuing to breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the manufacture and deployment of Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support–

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman had better contain himself.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support the 150 members of the United Nations who have by treaty and declaration refused to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If he supports those 150 nations and their moral superiority, why does he not follow them? Does he support them, yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) drew attention to some of the inconsistencies in the hon. Gentleman’s question. The replacement of Polaris in the mid-1990s is essential for Britain to maintain an effective and credible deterrent into the next century. There is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prevent a nuclear weapons state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of a minimum deterrent in this way. That is the position in law and it is our position in policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory and misleading answer, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter again, but he had better withdraw the word “misleading”.

    Mr. Cryer rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I heard the word. I am sure that he will rephrase it for me.

    Mr. Cryer : I will withdraw the word “misleading” and say that he was economical with the truth.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Thompson.

    Mr. Thompson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of representations from the police and local crime prevention panels, including the panel in Norwich, about the increased number of serious crimes committed by young people, some out on bail? Some individuals commit literally hundreds of offences. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to tackle that horrendous problem?

    The Prime Minister : I will offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is a small hard core of persistent young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, most notably property crime, especially car theft. In the past society has sometimes perhaps been too quick to understand and too slow to condemn. I doubt whether that helps the young people concerned. It is time to crack down on those young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly make proposals to do just that.

     

    Q6. Dr. Reid : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Dr. Reid : With reference to the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on the question of Maastricht, may I inform him that this morning I had the pleasure of showing round the House of Commons a group of pupils from Brannock high school in my constituency? Having spoken of 1,000 years of Parliament and several hundred years of parliamentary sovereignty, I was asked a simple question by one of the pupils : “But what good is Parliament if the Prime Minister can ignore it when he chooses?” How would the Prime Minister have responded to that question?

    The Prime Minister : He would have said, “I can’t, and I don’t.”

    Mr. Hawkins : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of literally thousands of my constituents who work at British Aerospace on the Tornado line for the work that he did in personally securing the contract? Will he further accept that my constituents know that they have him and the Conservative party to thank for securing their future in the defence industry and the future of their families? Unlike the Labour party, which whinges and whines, my right hon. Friend goes out and gets jobs for Britain.

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that endorsement. The Tornado is undoubtedly a fine aircraft and I hope that we shall be able to export many more.