The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Auckland – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Regent Hotel in Auckland, held on Thursday 9th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, Mrs. Clarke, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Perhaps first I may thank you both for your very warm and very pleasant welcome to Auckland. Norma and I have long wanted to visit New Zealand. As you both said, it is far too long since a British Prime Minister was here and nothing I have seen or heard since I have come is likely to delay my return though of course there are two or three days still to go! [Laughter]

    Some of you may be a touch surprised to hear me say this but I think the timing of this visit is exactly right. There are important issues that we need to discuss and I think we should discuss those issues face to face and not through the distorting prism of long-range soundbites and I believe that the United Kingdom and New Zealand have a longstanding relationship that will enable us to do that.

    Both of our countries have changed quite remarkably in recent years. In both, the economy and the structures of Government have been transformed and in each case our countries have emerged the stronger for it. Inevitably, our relationship has changed, it is now more modern, certainly more equal but that shouldn’t exclude ties of history, of personal friendship and of shared interests.

    Though we won’t always adopt identical positions, the New Zealanders and the British need to understand one another’s viewpoints and it is in that spirit that I wish to say something today about three issues that are in the headlines and which matter: the Middle East, nuclear weapons and Northern Ireland.

    I came here last evening not from London but from Israel and I would like to say just a few words first about Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

    He was a warrior, a man who fought and led in several wars in defence of his country’s interests, but as Israel’s Prime Minister he fought with equal courage for a lasting peace in the Middle East and for that a few days ago he gave his life.

    Whether we are from Britain or from New Zealand, it is in the interests of all of us to see a settled peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours. A peace settlement won’t remove all threats to stability in the Middle East, it will emphatically not resolve the problems posed by Iraq, posed by Iran, posed by Libya or the fragility of Algeria but it will defuse the sharpest issues in the region and allow new relationships to grow.

    In the Mount Herzl cemetery on Monday, leaders from West and East, and most remarkably from a range of Arab nations, shared the grief of the Israeli people. That could never have happened even a few years ago and it showed more powerfully than any words that could be uttered that a stable peace can be achieved if Prime Minister Rabin’s work is carried on, as I passionately believe it will be by his successor.

    I know that here in New Zealand you’d wish to join with me in remembering his life with gratitude and the achievements that he produced towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.

    Let me now turn to another issue of some importance mentioned both by the Prime Minister and by Mrs. Clarke, an issue that arouses strong emotions, the issue of nuclear weapons.

    It is not in the style of New Zealanders and the British to be other than direct and open with one another so let me tackle nuclear testing head on because to judge from some of the comments I have read and heard over recent weeks the British position is not properly understood here in New Zealand so let me set out the position for you.

    We, like you, wish to see a complete end to nuclear testing. We, the British, have no plans to carry out further tests or need to do so. We, like you, want a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We, like you, want to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and we are working for controls on fissile material and to eliminate chemical and biological weapons.

    We, the British, were one of the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and were instrumental in achieving its indefinite extension earlier last year.

    In all this, I suspect Britain and New Zealand are united but there is a difference between us. Britain is a nuclear power and New Zealand is not. As Prime Minister, I have the ultimate responsibility for the use, the control and the safety of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. I hope and pray that it need never be used but until I am sure of that, sure of that beyond doubt, we will keep the deterrent and keep it in working order.

    Some say the world no longer needs deterrence. I must say I don’t agree with that point of view. Nuclear deterrence gave Europe security and stability. It would in my judgement by irresponsible to discard it before there is a better means of preserving stability to put in its place.

    Let me cite for you the example of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was developing – and might still be planning – nuclear weapons. He developed hideous forms of biological warfare and stockpiled enough biological and chemical weapons to wipe out the world’s population several times over. We cannot ignore such threats; that is one and there are others.

    As a Permanent Member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom is insisting on the full disclosure and elimination of these Iraqi programmes and strict monitoring to ensure compliance. We have at times come under pressure, often rather hard pressure, to soften our stance but we shall not do so. With the evidence that has now come to light, I believe we are right not to soften our stance. It is also right to keep our nuclear capacity and we will do so for as long as we judge it is needed for Britain’s protection and, if necessary, for the protection of our friends around the world.

    France, too, is a nuclear power whose weapons contribute to deterrence in Europe. Unlike Britain, France still needs to conduct some tests before signing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In this situation, it would have been very easy for me to come here this week and join the chorus of disapproval about French nuclear tests, I have no doubt it would have provided me with some easy plaudits and a very nice, free ride during my visit here to New Zealand. I could have done that. After all, we declared eight years ago that the United Kingdom would abide by the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, we accepted the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and three weeks ago we announced that we would sign the Protocols in the first half of next year in the company of the United States and France and we, the British, worked for this triple undertaking at the specific request of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, so I could have taken that free ride had I chosen to do so but I must say to you I am not prepared to do so because if I had, I believe it would have been hypocritical.

    I know the responsibility of being a nuclear power, I understand the difficulties that faced the President of France and I am not prepared to condemn him for discharging those responsibilities and if I had, I must say to you as friend to friend I would have fallen short of the honesty and frankness that New Zealand has a right to expect from the United Kingdom. Upon this issue, to my regret, we must agree to differ.

    Finally, Jim, you mentioned Northern Ireland, a matter very close to my heart and my Government’s policy. You, Prime Minister, are one of many in New Zealand with Irish antecedents.

    Northern Ireland has changed dramatically since Albert Reynolds and I signed the Downing Street Declaration just two years ago. Fourteen months of ceasefire have seen life there returning step by step towards the sort of normality which you in New Zealand can take for granted. As the threat of terrorism has diminished, we have been able to relax the measures necessary to combat it and now, throughout the Province, there are no military patrols, we have relocated large numbers of troops back to their home bases; there has been a surge in the economy, unemployment is dropping, trade and investment are rising and tourism has hit record levels.

    We now want to move forward as soon as possible to negotiations which will embrace all of the parties in Northern Ireland, including those parties previously associated with terrorism. Our aim is a lasting political settlement fair to all parties and fair to both sides of the community.

    Such a settlement can be achieved. With the active partnership of the Irish Government and valuable support from the United States, we have opened the way to a democratic future for all the people of Northern Ireland but there are still many problems to overcome. We still have to overcome the legacy of suspicion and the mindset of violence. Though shooting and bombing have ceased, the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries both retain their arsenals and continue the hideous practice of so-called punishment beatings.

    Let me say this to you today: a democratic society can neither accept muttered warnings by political leaders of a return to paramilitary violence nor the spectacle of thugs smashing teenagers’ legs with baseball bats.

    For the past ten months, through patient negotiation we have been trying to bring Sinn Fein into the democratic arena. Last Friday, we published new proposals for representatives of the paramilitaries to discuss with an international body how their arms and explosives could be taken out of commission while parallel talks took place to prepare for all-party negotiations. I hope that Sinn Fein will respond positively to our proposals. I hope they will catch the tide of peace self-evidently flowing so strongly amongst all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Once the paramilitaries start consigning their weapons to history, they can make a full contribution to Northern Ireland’s democratic life on precisely the same basis as all the other constitutional parties.

    Jim, when you next visit the land of your fathers, I hope you will go once again to Northern Ireland. You will find there an atmosphere transformed out of all recognition even since your last visit just two years ago.

    Let me return finally to where I began. My visit here today is about keeping in touch. For all our family ties, for all our connections in sport and education, in culture and in trade, for all the links which see 100,000 New Zealanders come to Britain each year and even more Britons come to New Zealand, we mustn’t take each other for granted because of those long historic links so I was delighted with your announcement this morning that more young Britons will be allowed to come here as working holiday-makers. We, for our part, are going to mount a special programme of events in 1997 to show young New Zealanders why the link with Britain remains relevant to them in the 1990s.

    You and I, Prime Minister, have worked together in a way that the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and New Zealand have traditionally worked together. We have spoken openly as friends, bluntly from time to time when that was necessary and we have listened to what the other had to say. We have a great deal to learn from each other. I believe that Britain and New Zealand, with that close link that has been there for ever, have both gained from that and will gain from it in the future.

    We have watched from the United Kingdom with interest and admiration the reforms of the public sector that you have undertaken, reforms whose implementation, as we have seen in our own experience in the United Kingdom, can sometimes be very painful but which are now bearing fruit in a revitalised economic performance.

    Whenever you asked me to take up issues on New Zealand’s behalf, I have invariably done so. Equally, let me say to this audience today how much I value your Government’s support over Northern Ireland and your decision to send a contingent to serve with distinction alongside British troops with the United Nations in Bosnia. We shall work just as closely together, I believe, over the next few days to ensure the success of the Commonwealth Meeting under your Chairmanship.

    The Commonwealth, as I have seen on countless occasions, generates a unique spirit and on this occasion it has provided the happy circumstance of bringing Norma and me here today to see you and Joan once again, to enjoy your generous hospitality, to meet friends old and new and to see a country we have always wished to visit. It is a visit we will cherish and we are delighted to be here and most grateful for your hospitality. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Briefing to Journalists on Northern Ireland – 21 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing on Northern Ireland to journalists, held on Thursday 21st September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly welcome you here this afternoon and I hope we can have a useful exchange.

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about where we are in the process, how we led up to where we are, and I suppose most importantly, where we go from the present situation. And I have no doubt that you will have questions certainly about the third of those points and maybe the others as well.

    Let me give you some personal thoughts about the pursuit of what we have come to know as peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We are pretty close now to the second anniversary of the Joint Declaration. I don’t think many people would dissent from the view that we have travelled a good deal further on the road towards peace since that Joint Declaration than most people imagined at the time.

    A lot of people didn’t believe that Albert Reynolds and I would reach agreement on it. When we did reach agreement on it they didn’t think it would move forward any further and thanks to the cooperation between the governments and others we have, and I think that is a considerable advance.

    When I first came into Downing Street in 1990, I remember very vividly sitting here and listing in front of me a small number of priorities for the future. One of those priorities on the first occasion I came in here was Northern Ireland. At the time I think it is probably fair to say that wasn’t universally welcomed as a wise move. The history, as told by the cynical, was that the burden of history was too great, that age-old animosities were too deeply ingrained for there to be any practical and worthwhile move forward. Too many people had come to grief on the Irish question, was the familiar refrain from very many quarters.

    I didn’t agree with that. I didn’t agree with that then, I haven’t agreed with that on the good days we have had since then and I certainly haven’t agreed with it on the days when things have been difficult either. It was repugnant to me then that people were killing one another in Northern Ireland and beating one another up in Northern Ireland, and it was as repugnant to me in Northern Ireland as it would have been if it was happening locally in Westminster, in Surrey or in Durham or anywhere else. So I felt that it was worthwhile making a fresh and original effort to see how far we could get with a peace process.

    If I ever needed any reinforcing in the belief that that was the right thing to do, I have to say that every single visit that I have made to Ulster over the last five years, and there have now been rather a lot of visits to Ulster, has reinforced me in the view that it was beyond any doubt the right thing to do.

    It is quite striking if you go into Northern Ireland, and one has seen before the external image of the disputes in Northern Ireland, to actually then go into Northern Ireland in the streets and feel the atmosphere and meet the people, whether Catholic or Protestant. And what struck me very forcibly in those early visits was the clear willingness of the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, whatever their religion might be, to give their support to a peace effort that they believed was based on fairness, transparency and democracy. I have found that to be a consistent theme whenever I have gone there, whether I have spoken to special interest groups or people with no particular special interest other than being a citizen of Northern Ireland.

    And when things have run into difficulties from time to time, you might perhaps be surprised by the weight of letters and messages that have come here from Northern Ireland from people who by and large in their own different ways have had the same simple straightforward message – stick with the process and don’t be put off by the setbacks.

    If anybody believed that we could move from where we were to a final agreement in Northern Ireland without setbacks, then they are an incurable romantic and a dreamer. It was never going to be that way, it hasn’t been that way and there may yet be setbacks as well as advances in the future.

    One of those setbacks was just a few days ago when we postponed the summit that John Bruton and I were to have had at Chequers. But I think we need to put this in context. It was a setback, it was not a crisis. And those people, whenever there is a setback, who talk as though it were a crisis and the peace process itself were doomed are doing no good to the process and simply talking up their own negotiating position. Setback is one thing, crisis is another. What we have had is a setback and it is a setback I hope and believe that we will overcome.

    Progress is going to be uneven. We are not suddenly going to wake up one morning, rub our eyes and find the whole thing is finally sealed and settled. That is not I believe the way it is remotely likely to be. It will evolve, this settlement, just as it has been evolving since the Downing Street declaration.

    In the year after the Downing Street declaration we made pretty dramatic strides in a whole series of fronts. That will not always be the case, though I think that we will be able to carry this process a good deal forward.

    At the moment, for the last few weeks, we have been in a bit of a pause period. But with patience, a degree of imagination and I think perhaps from time to time steady nerves as well, I think we will be able to move this process forward. If we are going to do that, as I believe we can, one absolutely indispensable element will be the continued close cooperation between London and Dublin. I have found it a very good working relationship, first with Albert Reynolds and subsequently with John Bruton. We haven’t always agreed on everything, we haven’t always approached things entirely from the same angle, but it has been a good working relationship and it remains so with John Bruton as the present Taoiseach.

    Let me add just a couple of points about the future. Firstly, all-party round table talks – the sooner that I can convene all-party round table talks on a constitutional settlement the better, the happier I will be when we can get there. I would be perfectly happy to do so this afternoon if that were feasible. But in the reality of politics, there is no purpose whatsoever in calling all-party talks unless there is a pretty good chance that all the parties are going to be there if we were to do so, and if parties began to absent themselves, perhaps permanently, perhaps in large numbers, then we would have made a mistake in our move forward.

    I can’t force people to the conference table, I can’t coerce them to the conference table, I can encourage them to go to the conference table. The principle of consent, which I think we one stage was not universally accepted, is and must remain at the heart of the efforts of London and Dublin combined. And it applies to all-party talks, just as much as it applies to anything else in the peace process.

    Let me just say a word about decommissioning. Decommissioning is raised from time to time because it is an extremely important issue. What it is not is a British obsession, it is emphatically not a new condition cooked up by Perfidious Albion after the IRA ceasefire, and I think a cursory glance at your cuttings will confirm that that is so. If anybody doesn’t have the cuttings to hand I think it is quite probable that I might be able to find them for you. So it is not something that we have suddenly cooked up and I very much welcome the editorials in some of your newspapers recently which have emphatically made that point.

    As far as decommissioning is concerned, well frankly I don’t care how it is done so long as it is credible and verifiable. I am not looking for surrenders, I am not looking for people coming out, throwing their weapons down at the feet of the British. That is not remotely what I have in mind. All I am concerned about is getting those arms out of commission because that is the key point in getting people to the all-party round table talks that are so essential, and ultimately getting people to accept an agreement that will be willingly accepted by all the people concerned.

    The principle of decommissioning comes smack out of the core of the Joint Declaration. And the plain truth is just simply this. The majority parties in Northern Ireland, representing the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, just will not come to the conference table until Sinn Fein / IRA have begun the process of actual decommissioning.

    Now I can see no other way of generating the confidence necessary to draw the relevant parties into substantive talks. And neither is it just stubbornness by the UIster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists political parties, that is not the situation in the North. I daresay everyone present will have seen the poll in the Irish News recently, I think it was late August, which showed that 90% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, believe that the decommissioning of IRA arms should be a precondition for the inclusion of Sinn Fein in all-party talks. And when you broke that down into party allegiance, not only did you find perhaps unsurprisingly that that was over 90% of the DUP and Ulster Unionist support, but it was I think 73% of Alliance Party support and a substantial figure, I think 33%, of SDLP and Nationalist support. So it runs right across the North, it isn’t simply a fresh condition generated and invented by Unionist leaders in the North.

    The Irish Times I think made that point very forcibly and I don’t generally quote newspapers editorials so perhaps it is a bad principle to start, it wouldn’t always work in my favour. But on this occasion the Irish Times set it out very clearly in April earlier this year.

    So what next from the present situation? I continue to believe that the twin track approach – preparatory talks involving all the parties on one hand, and an international commission on decommissioning on the other hand – offers the best way forward from where we are at present. Now I don’t know, I can’t know whether this approach will get off the ground because the answer to that depends on other people. What I can say is that I will continue to work patiently to try and ensure that it does get off the ground, off the ground with the constitutional parties. I saw David Trimble and John Taylor earlier this week, I will be seeing John Hume and Ian Paisley – separately, not together – some time next week, and I hope to see John Alderice as soon as we can agree a mutually convenient date.

    We will continue to work also with the paramilitaries on both sides in exploratory dialogue, and with our colleagues in America with whom we have remained in the closest touch for a very long time. And of course with John Bruton whom I will be seeing tomorrow and on Saturday in Majorca. We mustn’t expect great announcements at the end of these discussions. John and I talk a great deal on the telephone, privately, in the sidelines of international meetings that we attend. Our points of contact are not just on the great setpiece summits, it is a regular and continuing dialogue, and frankly it is a dialogue on a scale that I don’t believe has existed between London and Dublin at any stage before, I don’t believe that has ever been anything like that. And my office and his office are in direct contact, I think it is fair to say if you add in the contacts between offices, on a daily basis and have been for a long time. So the contact is very close. There will be differences of approach but we try and work them out when we can and the working relationship with John Bruton is one of the reasons for encouragement that we will be able to carry this process forward.

    I am sorry to burden you with that lengthy introduction but I thought it might put one of two things in content before we turn to your questions. I am happy to take your questions, we will see what you have to ask and where I think it is prudent for the process to answer the question, I will answer the question, if I don’t think it is prudent I will tell you it is not prudent and not answer the question.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Irish Independent):

    Prime Minister, you referred to your hope that the international commission might get of the ground. Earlier today Mr Ancram remarked that it was not envisaged that the commission would actually oversee the decommissioning of arms. To whom do you envisage that arms would actually be handed up to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the things that the decommissioning commission will look at will be questions like that. The commission will look at the modalities, the mechanism for actually determining how arms are decommissioned. We can consider late further matters on the basis of their recommendation. We need to take this one step at a time. What I am conscious of, I do understand, perhaps better than people will sometimes give the British government credit for, some of the inhibitions and difficulties that face Sinn Fein as well. I do sit here and try and put myself forward into Mr Adams’s head to see the difficulties that he faces in order to determine what he is going to do. So I understand those difficulties. We are not seeking to pile embarrassment and difficulty upon Sinn Fein. What we are seeking to do is to find a way in which they are able to come forward and accept the decommissioning of arms. I think if we proposed how that was going to be done, that would be less likely to be accepted than if it were done by an independent commission. It was out of that thought that the concept of an independent commission, very probably chaired by a distinguished American, I think that is overwhelmingly likely and a name has been in circulation, I think that is the best way to proceed and I think that we will continue to go down that route.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    You said in your remarks that progress is going to be uneven, and I think we would all accept that. But winding up the debate in the British/Irish Interparliamentary Union yesterday afternoon, Michael Mates said, “We might even have to contemplate a short term return to violence to break the impasse, otherwise appeasement goes on”. Is that British government policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say, I haven’t seen the transcript of what Michael said and long experience has taught me to be very careful about responding to things that I have not myself seen in black and white or heard. Subject to that, let me set out what the British government’s position is.

    Of course no-one wants a return to violence, no-one wants a return to violence in any circumstances or for any reason. What we do want is a lasting peace. That can’t be a peace at any price because that is the sort of peace that isn’t going to last. And from the moment Albert Reynolds and I first decided that we would go down this route, we were looking not for a ceasefire, welcome though a ceasefire is, but a peace that was going to be enduring. And the reason we need that is self-evident. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last year. You have seen huge economic changes in Northern Ireland. What we have not yet seen in Northern Ireland is a degree of international investment that can come from abroad, into the north and into the south in my judgement, once it is clear we have got over the arms problem and we are moving towards a proper settlement. That is why a short term peace settlement is no good, the prize is much bigger than that. But we don’t want to return to violence under any circumstances and I don’t really think I need say very much more than that, that is the British Government’s position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you then believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are bluffing when they say that they cannot contemplate handing over arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I find their position, I have my own judgement of what is bluff and what is negotiating tactics and what isn’t, but I don’t think it would be helpful to anyone if I was to unburden that thought to you. What I do say is that we do get conflicting noises from Sinn Fein publicly. It is very difficult on one hand to accept that their comments about them being dedicated to look for peace, this is a permanent peace, there is absolutely no doubt that they are determined to have peace, and all the other statements that have been made by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, and their view that that represents the view of their movement, and then to find them so resistant to beginning the decommissioning of arms. If they are permanently committed to a democratic future then they do not need an armed army at their back. I can understand that they do not want embarrassment or humiliation, as they would see it, of handing over their arms to the British. I do understand that, and that is why we moved down the route of an independent commission.

    But if what they say about entering the democratic process fully and being permanently committed to peace is truly their position, then I think it is hard for any dispassionate observer to understand why they wouldn’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body. I won’t repeat the point about understanding the pride of their movement, I think I do, but that doesn’t stand up when they are not being asked to hand their arms over to the British but they are being asked to hand them over to an independent commission.

    QUESTION:

    Michael Ancram, speaking to journalists this morning, seemed to be suggesting that both governments are now looking at the issue of decommissioning [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think almost however you answer that question you would be apt to give someone a misleading impression. There is no hidden depth in our examination of decommissioning, it is actually a very straightforward concept. We are interested in decommissioning because without decommissioning we cannot convene successfully the all-party talks that will enable us to reach a proper settlement and put that settlement, agreed by the constitutional parties, including Sinn Fein and including the Loyalist paramilitaries, to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and then legislate for it. I daresay one can keep approaching this from a different angle but it is really rather straightforward, it is as simple as that.

    QUESTION:

    One supplementary. Kevin McNamara yesterday said that he felt it would eventually come to a form of words.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Kevin McNamara has always taken that view. I don’t think that is the view of his party any more and I don’t think that is the view of any – or hardly any – of the mainstream democratic parties in Northern Ireland either. It is, I fear, an uncomfortable reality for some people that the people of Northern Ireland – and I quote again the figures I used in the poll a moment or so ago, it is not just the politicians – do appear to feel very strongly that there is a need for decommissioning of arms if they are going to feel secure in agreements that have been reached and if I may personalise the matter a little, if you were entering into constitutional negotiations with someone would you not wish to know in those constitutional negotiations that they were not going to stamp out of the negotiations themselves and then return to an armed struggle having kept arms for the purpose? I think you would have a certain reserve about that. I think you would want to see some evidence that they were in the business of staying in constitutional politics for good, which is what we wish.

    I have said to Sinn Fein: “the door is open to you as constitutional politicians; you can march through that door as a constitutional party properly recognised and treated in the same way as the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP but if that is to be the case, then you must operate on the same basis as those other parties and you must not have an armed force at your back in the case of dispute!” and I do not think that that is anything other than a statement of plain common sense that most people in the north – almost everybody in the north and outside the north – will accept.

    QUESTION (OTE News, Belfast):

    On the one hand we have your Ministers in Northern Ireland saying that nobody wants a surrender and indeed if I am not mistaken consciously avoiding the use of the word “surrender” in any interviews or speeches and yet you say that you can’t understand why the IRA won’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body.

    I live in Northern Ireland, for my part I think it highly unlikely that there will be any surrender. I think there could be some movement on the general principle of decommissioning but why has your Government stopped on the concept of arms actually being handed over, being surrendered?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me correct it. If I used “surrender”, let me make it clear what I mean.

    I don’t care if they are not handed over providing they are destroyed, they are decommissioned. As I tried to indicate vividly, I don’t expect them to come out and throw their arms down at the feet of other people. That has never been my position. All I am concerned about is that the arms are removed from possible use, from circulation. I don’t mind, frankly, whether they decide that they would wish to hand their arms over to an independent body; I don’t mind whether their arms are destroyed in their presence by an independent body or by themselves in the presence of an independent body.

    All that matters to me is that the arms are taken out of use. It isn’t a question of surrendering. If I used that it was an inadequate term and a slip of the tongue. What I am concerned about is to make sure that the arms are not available for use. I am not seeking to embarrass or humiliate Sinn Fein in that fashion, that wouldn’t be a productive or sensible thing to do. I just want the arms taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    And what the about the argument that you are not prepared to talk to Sinn Fein if they have 100% of their munitions? 95%?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We need to show that they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning. If they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning, then they will begin to decommission. Once they have done that, then I think it is reasonable to ask the other political parties to sit down with them and I think some of the other political parties have said that once they begin to do that there is no reason not to sit down with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein and the Loyalist paramilitaries, to begin to discuss how we move forward. That is what we are working for but I repeat pedantically the substantive point, there is no point in my pretending that they don’t need to move down that route of taking arms out because even if I were to take that position, which I am not, the other parties would not and there would be nobody sitting at the table at all and that is useless for the process.

    QUESTION:

    Are you persuaded from your recent conversations with David Trimble that if Sinn Fein began the process of decommissioning as outlined by the British Government and particularly by Sir Patrick Mayhew in Washington, that if they did that and if they began the process of decommissioning their arms and explosives, that the Ulster Unionist Party would sit down to all-party talks with Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Emily, that is a question you must ask David Trimble. I can’t definitely answer for David Trimble or John Hume or any of the others.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    That was central to your discussion with him presumably?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a whole range of things. I wouldn’t say that any individual thing was central to the discussion. We ran across the whole field in the hour and a half we had and we will have a good deal more meetings in the future to run across more so I don’t think I am prepared to put my words into Mr Trimble’s mouth or anybody else’s mouth. What I can say is once there is clear evidence that Sinn Fein are beginning to decommission, then the probability of all-party talks will be accelerated beyond belief and I think myself that we would get all-party talks.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think that the official Unionists or indeed the DUP would put further road blocks in the way of all-party talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope nobody is going to put further road blocks. I understand the suspicions that have existed on both sides. There has been a long legacy of one political party having a mistrust of another political party, it operates on both sides of the divide.

    In local government a few years ago we would have found it incredible that they would have worked together; they are working together in local government. What has been done as local government can be done at leader level in the parties in Northern Ireland as well and the sooner we are able to get in that position, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and by the “better it will be for Northern Ireland”, I don’t only mean that they will have a more secure reason for believing there will be no more violence though that certainly would be true but that I believe once you have got to that position it is actually going to unlock that avalanche of investment that I think is waiting abroad to come into the whole of Ireland once they are certain this process is going to be irreversible and the difference that is going to make to the living standards of people north and south is going to very remarkable, and one great gain we have had in the last year is that people have seen in the last year the speed with which ordinary circumstances can change as a result of the ceasefire. It is as nothing in my judgement to what will happen when there is a universal conviction that that ceasefire is going to become a permanent end to violence.

    QUESTION (John Cooney, Dublin Correspondent of the Glasgow Herald):

    In your ongoing talks with Mr Bruton, do you believe that both of you can convince Sinn Fein, the IRA, of the principle of decommissioning or do you think you will need the pressure from Washington and the Clinton Administration to effect that end?

    Secondly, just to clarify a point earlier, when you said you are having greater cooperation and contact with Dublin, is your relationship with John Bruton now more intimate than it was with Albert Reynolds?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure of the way you expressed the question! We had a very close political relationship and that was true with Albert and it was true with John Bruton as well. To give you a very practical illustration, I was in very regular contact with Albert Reynolds as well. To be brutally honest, you cannot conduct this sort of exercise at arms length. You can’t do it through interlocutors; there is a certain amount that can be done but at the end of the day you are going to have to do a certain amount of it yourself so I had very regular contact with Albert Reynolds on the telephone and directly. When Albert first came here, we agreed that we would institute the proposition of six-monthly summits alternating not rigidly but broadly alternating between London and Dublin but with Albert it still wasn’t just every six months.

    We meet regularly in any event at what seems to be an interminable number of European Union meetings and beyond that we have very close telephone contact so it has been very close in both instances, it really has. With Albert we had to sit down and negotiate bits of the Joint Declaration together, to call it a haggle I think would not be an unfair description and similarly with John Bruton with parts of the framework document. I don’t want to give you the impression we wrote all of it ourselves sitting in conclave just the two of us waiting for white smoke to come out. A huge amount of work of course was done by many other people.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it will require American intervention to get Sinn Fein to accept the principle of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that. There is no doubt that President Clinton is clear about the need for decommissioning, he has said so repeatedly. I think the Americans have made that point directly to Sinn Fein, they have said so publicly on a number of occasions as has John Bruton, as have an awful lot of other people, as has Dick Spring and many others.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    On the three-stranded relationship, the position of your Government was that nothing should be agreed until everything was agreed under that formula. Is that still the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, that is still the position.

    QUESTION:

    Can I take you one step back to Emily O’Reilly’s question, if Sinn Fein accept the commission…

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Back to or back from?

    QUESTION:

    Back one step beyond where she… If Sinn Fein accept the commission and the terms are agreed, are you in a position to guarantee that the Unionists would at least participate in the exploratory bilateral and trilateral talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the misconceptions there has always been in Sinn Fein’s mind and in many other people’s minds is that the British Government can guarantee the particular position of the Ulster Unionist and the Democratic Unionists parties and the Alliance parties and others; that has never been the position.

    I cannot guarantee that they are going to respond. I can encourage them to enter into the talks, I can point out the advantage of entering into the talks and all these things but it just is not the case, as Sinn Fein so often think, that all I have to do is to say to the Unionists in Northern Ireland: “I would like you to do this!” they would do it. That isn’t the case so I am not in the position of being able to offer guarantees any more than John Bruton can offer me guarantees about the way Sinn Fein or the IRA behave. That isn’t the case.

    What I am seeking is to bring both sides together, to have the talks bilateral, trilateral, more if they wish it on the one hand and to have the decommissioning commission operate. We just talked about Sinn Fein but of course they would be looking at the surrender of arms from the Protestant paramilitaries as well so I am not in a position to give guarantees, I am not the leader of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. I will use my best auspices to persuade them to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you make of the change in the Unionist leadership, the Unionists have a new leader? Do you think that is a good sign for the future, do you think that Mr Trimble is somebody who can come and sit round the table and do a deal eventually?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Any Unionist leader is going to have to carry the Unionist parties with him. Mr Trimble has been duly elected by the Unionist parties; he is therefore in a good position if he reaches an agreement, to carry his party with him in that agreement. I have to persuade him if I can that there is an agreement that it is possible to do and I will endeavour to do that. If I am able to persuade him, then I think that he will be able to bring his parties with him. He is an intelligent and an able man. Much of what I read about David Trimble in the last few weeks in the paper I don’t entirely recognise from the David Trimble I know in the House of Commons. He is a very shrewd and forthright politician. I don’t mind dealing with shrewd and forthright politicians, it is part of the way of life in Downing Street!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if it is so difficult to form the conditions to allow people to get around the table, is it not going to be impossible to form the conditions for any agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may say so without wishing to produce a smart-alec answer, that is what people said to me when we tried to get the Joint Declaration and it is what people said to me when we tried to form the framework documents. None of this is easy. If it had been easy, it would have been done a very long time ago. That is why I said to you it isn’t going to suddenly come together as a single solution signed, sealed and delivered overnight in a series of dramatic meetings. It is going to be a continuing process of confidence-building and edging forward so that people being to trust those with whom they are dealing more and more.

    The answer to your question is yes, I believe we can. If I did not believe that we could carry this process from beginning to end, then I would not have embarked upon this process in the beginning. It has not always been easy, it has not always been friction-free, but I think it can be carried from beginning to end and I think although people tend to look at the impasse when it suddenly seems to be created between one political bloc and another, there is an undercurrent which people would be very ill-advised to ignore and the undercurrent is the pressure of opinion in the north and in the south that compels the politicians, all of them, me included, to move on towards a settlement. Whomsoever stops this progress in its tracks now will have a lot to answer for to history and will have a lot to answer for to their contemporaries, so the answer is yes, yes, yes, I believe we can carry it forward.

    QUESTION:

    Given that the answer is yes, have you any vision of what that settlement could be or is that a mystery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a mystery, but if this settlement is going to stick it is not a settlement that is going to come out of the mouth of the British Prime Minister. It has got to be a settlement that is going to come out after discussion with the political parties. Of course I can see where I think they will end, but I think we must have their discussions, we have their inputs, we must consider that, we must see what they have to produce. At the end of the day it is going to be their settlement approved by the people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    What time-scale do you envisage or when do you think the parties will get down to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know. I don’t wish to put a time-scale on it. The sooner the better. I do not wish to see any undue delay but I do not think it prudent at the moment to put a short-term time-frame to something. I don’t think that would be productive at the moment. That is not to suggest that I am expecting a long delay, simply that I think it would be counter-productive for me to suggest short-term time-frames by which certain things needed to be done. What we need now is coaxing and persuasion and encouragement, not the constraint of a short time-frame.

    QUESTION:

    You have been talking a lot about how good the relationship is between the two governments. At a certain point in the week when the summit was cancelled it seemed anything but that; there was a lot of misunderstanding and certainly the spin that came from the British officials and the British media was that John Bruton is running scared of Sinn Fein and that it was the IRA who had effectively vetoed the summit. Would that have been your view of what happened given the British Government seemed determined [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read a lot of that in the press, certainly in the Irish press as well if I may say so. I am not even sure, Emily, that you didn’t write it! [Laughter]. There you are, you see the interest I take in your writing!

    I think John Bruton is a brave and forthright politician. I like doing business with him and I am not going to say anything that going to lead you to believe anything to the contrary.

    QUESTION (Bernard Persil, Irish Independent):

    Are you confident that you can deliver all of your party with this settlement because as you are aware a lot of people haven’t really come this far before, they are quite nervous about that it may entail, there is an awful lot of misrepresentation of positions not least within your own party, not least amongst some of your own backbenchers. Will that be a particular obstacle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may fall back on parliamentary tradition, I refer you to the answer I gave to the gentleman here just a moment or so ago! [Laughter]. If I can move it forward satisfactorily, I think I will be able to carry on.

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick, in his speech last night, said that if the international commission brought forward proposals for an alternative approach on decommissioning the Government would look at those proposals and judge them by their merits. Could that be taken to mean that if the commission proposed that you scrap Part 3 of the Washington test that you would do so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Sir Patrick said “on their merits” and we will look at things on their merits.

    I emphasise again that this “Washington 3” condition is not a condition invented by the Government after the ceasefire. I just emphasise that point again. It is a statement of the political reality and one thing we cannot do in these negotiations is avoid political reality and I think Patrick was emphasising that point again yesterday.

    I think unless there is anything terribly fresh and original or anyone is burning with something…..

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Twenty-five years in politics suggests to me it is always a mistake to take the last question! [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick has also said that he is very worried and very conscious of the fact that the IRA allegedly are recruiting and restructuring all the time. Presumably, that would give you pause for thought and would not be too hopeful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course we are concerned about the IRA’s activities. We are concerned about the punishment beatings that go on. One thing that the ceasefire has done is draw the veil up so that people have actually looked at the punishment beatings that have gone on as well and they have continued during this period and of course we are concerned about activities like that, of course we are.

    I think we had better call a halt. Thank you very much for coming. I hope as events proceed that we have the opportunity of another meeting discuss further progress. I will look forward to that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with John Bruton – 9 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with John Bruton in Moscow on Tuesday 9th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just, by way of introduction, say a word or two about the talks that the Taoiseach and I have had this afternoon. We have taken the opportunity of both being here in Moscow to discuss a range of issues and I will elaborate upon those in a moment. But I would like to say, before I do, that this afternoon’s discussions have been another further illustration, if one would need it, that the relationship between the British government and the Irish government is as good, as sound and as close today as I believe it has been at any stage in the past and I am delighted that that is so and I believe the Taoiseach feels precisely the same way about it.

    We touched upon a range of matters this afternoon, let me run through those we dealt with and then you may wish to ask a few questions about them. We looked at the agenda for the forthcoming European Council at Cannes and we discussed a range of issues, most noticeably the problem faced right across Western Europe on drugs, the sort of issues that are going to be discussed at the Cannes Conference. We took a further look ahead to the Intergovernmental Conference itself. Clearly there are a range of issues, institutional questions and other issues as well, and we had a very preliminary discussion about that and agreed that we would resume bilateral discussion about that at our next formal bilateral summit. We have not agreed a date for that but we would expect it to be probably before the middle of September and our officials will now look and see if they can find a specific date for it. This is part of a series of bilaterals that we have agreed to have, two a year alternately in Dublin and London, and thus far they have proved extremely worthwhile and extremely productive.

    We discussed the present situation in the talks about Ireland. I was able to say to the Taoiseach that our talks with the Loyalist Paramilitaries are proceeding extremely well, we are very happy with the developments there have been thus far and those of course are continuing.

    I also confirmed to the Taoiseach that Michael Ancram will meet Sinn Fein tomorrow, for the first occasion upon which there have been discussions at Ministerial level between Sinn Fein’s representatives and a representative of the British government. I expect these talks to go on for some time, there are a range of matters that we will need to discuss there. The purpose of these talks is to reach sufficient agreement to enable Sinn Fein to enter into all-party political talks, that is the objective, we wish to help and ease Sinn Fein into bilateral political talks in due course.

    Clearly that does mean dealing with a range of issues, most obviously it means dealing with the question of decommissioning of arms, and we have made it clear in the past that it will be necessary for Sinn Fein to agree that decommissioning will take place, to agree the modalities of decommissioning, and then to move forward to some practical demonstrations. And that is not just the question of the British government saying that needs to be done, the reality is that unless that is done the other political parties will not engage in bilateral talks. To move forward to bilateral talks is essential if we are going to carry this process as far forward as we wish to and we will enter into those talks with Sinn Fein in the hope that we will be able to satisfactorily move Sinn Fein from the present position into a position where the other political parties will be happy to engage in dialogue with them.

    That is a broad brush outline of the matters we discussed this afternoon, the Taoiseach may wish to add something and then we will take any questions you may have.

    MR BRUTON:

    As the Prime Minister said, we discussed the drugs issue which is a major problem in Europe and in both our countries and we are anxious to see action taken both individually and at a European level to deal with this scourge which is affecting the livelihoods and happiness of so many families in our two countries.

    We are also very keen to see the Intergovernmental Conference work, to see the European Union enlarge in an effective way and we discussed in a preliminary fashion some of the issues that will be coming up at Cannes and later on in Majorca in the lead-up to the Intergovernmental Conference on these questions.

    I welcomed very much what the Prime Minister said to me, as he has now said to you, the fact that the British government is working, as is the Irish government, to a situation where all parties will take part in discussions with both governments and with all other parties on the same basis. Obviously a number of important issues remain to be resolved before one can reach that point, but what is very clear is that it is the intention of Her Majesty’s government and the Irish government to seek to achieve that objective as soon as is feasible. Obviously patience will be required, a willingness to understand the concerns of the other side of the table will be required from all participants, but we believe that that requirement will be met.

    QUESTION:

    You said that there was a question-mark over the talks which start tomorrow, because you have put a challenge to Sinn Fein about whether they would condemn the violent demonstration in Londonderry. They did not condemn those people who took part in that demonstration. Why have you decided to go ahead with the talks anyway?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out in the House of Commons on Thursday that there are much wider issues at stake. The interests of the people of Northern Ireland are to try and see this process through and I think that is the thing that weighs most heavily on my mind. As I set out in the House of Commons last week, I think we need to look at those wider interests, we need to ensure that nothing artificially puts a block upon the prospects of progress. I have no doubt that the demonstration there was in Derry last week was not Derry people, I don’t think Derry need feel any concern about their own particular position. It was an organised demonstration, it was silly. I hope from that that Sinn Fein have learned it was silly, I think it has been very widely condemned from many sources. Let us see if they are now prepared at those talks to make the sort of progress that they have been talking about. Mr Adams has been saying for a long time that he would like to make progress, that he would like these peace talks to proceed. Well now he has the opportunity, his colleagues have the opportunity, face to face with a British Minister, to look at the issues that they know and we know and everybody in Ireland knows need to be resolved if we are to carry this matter forward. I think that is the most important issue.

    QUESTION:

    Before the ceasefire you once said in the Commons that your stomach would turn at the prospect of talks with the IRA, looking back do you now regret having said that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, John, because if you look back and read what I said at the same tine and you see the complete quote, you will see that what I said, I was referring to talks while murder, bombing and violence was continuing, and if you look back at what I said in the House of Commons and look at the whole quote and not a partial quote you will see that is what I said.

    QUESTION:

    On the question of decommission, the Prime Minister has been quite specific that he still needs to see progress, he needs to see modalities in position before Sinn Fein can take part in talks with other people. Are you in agreement on that position?

    MR BRUTON:

    I think there has got to be serious progress made on the issue of getting the guns out of politics and putting them out of commission. This is not just a requirement of the government, it is a requirement of the other parties with whom the settlement must be reached. It is not practical to think in terms for example of Sinn Fein sitting down on the basis of equality with the Unionists and reaching an agreement with them while guns are still in commission, that is the reality that the government recognise, it is not a requirement imposed by the government as such, it is a reality there which has to be met anyway, this is obvious that decommissioning has to be dealt with very seriously on the agenda of these talks. And we will both be looking for discussions to take place not just on the principle of decommissioning but also on exactly how it is going to be done in some detail. But as we have stressed on several occasions the decommissioning of arms is not the only item on the agenda, there are other items as well and we want to see progress on those too.

    QUESTION:

    But does it have to be decoupled from the question of demilitarisation which Sinn Fein don’t want to do?

    MR BRUTON:

    I believe that a satisfactory basis has now been reached for discussions between Sinn Fein and the British government, all the background has now been satisfactorily covered and we have reached a formula upon which the discussions can now take place and it is a question of getting down to business now, discussing the whole range of issues that are important here, not just decommissioning of arms, also the issues of policing, the position of prisoners, the possible releasing of prisoners in due course, an issue which I mentioned to the Prime Minister during the course of our discussions, and the recognition of the mandate of the parties involved, the ability of parties to make representations to Ministers, all of these are issues that now need to be dealt with in a constructive spirit. There is not one item on the agenda, but it would be entirely wrong to under-estimate the importance of getting rid of the guns.

    QUESTION:

    Martin McGuinness has apparently said that there would be no surrender of arms this side of a political settlement, can you comment on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the place to have discussions like that is in the discussions and not here with you and nor with Mr McGuinness making statements outside. I think often things are said for public consumption. The reality is to test whether those things are meant or not. Sinn Fein say to me, say to everyone, that they want to move forward with their democratic mandate. You cannot move forward with a democratic mandate with a gun in your hand. So the reality is that in the discussions the gun is going to have to come out of Irish politics, everyone understands that. So I think people should be less concerned about statements made for public consumption and look at what practical progress can be made in discussions. The discussions are there for practical progress, I think no-one is in any doubt about what needs to be done, it has been self-evident, the Northern Irish political parties are clear about it, the British government is clear about it, the Taoiseach has made his position clear, the Vice-President of the United States yet again made the American position clear, the position of the churches in Northern Ireland collectively is entirely clear. So we are now entering into talks in which the old oratory I hope can be thrown to one side and pushed aside, now we are reaching a situation where we need to see what actions can be taken and in Northern Ireland it is going to be actions in the future that matter, not the words of the past.

    QUESTION:

    The Taoiseach mentioned the release of prisoners, do the British accept the early release of convicted terrorists?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have a British legal system, I cannot change the British legal situation, that is the situation now and that has always been the situation and I certainly cannot discuss that today.

    QUESTION:

    The ceremony this morning in Red Square was billed in advance as a parade of veterans, there were clearly more than veterans there this morning, including possibly some soldiers who fought in Chechnya, does this disturb you at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there were boys there, very young men there who clearly were not veterans, there were some youngsters there who were 15 or 17 who I think came from some of the Academies in Moscow, I am not aware of any veterans that were being there, but I simply don’t know.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] serving soldiers, I spoke to them.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not a matter I am aware of and it is not a matter I can comment on at the moment. You told me that, I was not aware of that.

    QUESTION:

    I understand the Russians [inaudible] would be strictly veterans only?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were not expecting Chechnyan veterans there, that is certainly the case, I don’t know whether there were or not, I certainly have not heard that there were.

    QUESTION:

    In your bilateral talks with President Yeltsin, did you bring up Chechnya and were you satisfied with what he said to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I did bring up Chechnya, we discussed a range of matters, Chechnya, NATO, bilateral matters, a number of other things, and they were very satisfactorily discussed. The substantive part of the discussion was about NATO and we had discussed this at some length when President Yeltsin visited me at Chequers some months ago and we returned to those discussions again this morning and I think they were very worthwhile and very productive. We also look forward to the G7/G8 meeting in Halifax later this year and looked at some of the issues that we may discuss there. So although it was a good deal briefer than many of our meetings because there were a lot of other events for us to attend today, we managed to cover quite a lot of ground.

    QUESTION:

    What did you say to him about Chechnya and what did he say to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear, I think people understand the British government’s position about Chechnya, we have emphasised that again. We also made it clear that it is very important to keep the OSCE heavily involved in Chechnya and President Yeltsin assured me that that would be the case.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the expansion of NATO?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Russian position is as it has been for some time, the Russians are concerned about the expansion of NATO and clearly what concerns the Russians is that there is going to be a very sudden and very dramatic expansion of NATO, right across Central and Eastern Europe and the Russians are self-evidently worried about that. I was able to say to President Yeltsin that we don’t envisage a dramatic and sudden remarkable expansion of NATO, that this is a progressive evolutionary expansion and that, at the same time we will be building up with the United States and other countries the Partnership in Peace Initiative and clearly within that there is a very special place for Russia because Russia is quite apart in terms of its size and its military importance of any of the other nations. And I think many of the concerns that I understand abound here in Russia, I understand why those concerns are there but I think many of them are a mis-reading of what is actually proposed in terms of the future of NATO and we were able to talk about this morning.

  • PMQT – 4 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Canavan: In view of renewed speculation that the Thatcher dynasty might emulate the Churchill dynasty by winning the lottery jackpot, will the Prime Minister set an example by ensuring free access to all his prime ministerial papers before they, along with him, are very soon consigned to the dustbin of history?

    The Prime Minister: I agreed in 1991 that I shall remove from my office, in due course, only papers of a truly personal nature and no official material, other than that which, like speeches, is already in the public domain. I hope that my successors will follow that convention.

     

    Q2. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit yesterday to meet the victims of the IRA’s continued brutality will be widely welcomed? Does he agree that Sinn Fein’s protestations to be a democratic, political party ring hollow while it continues to orchestrate and to defend vicious attacks on the police and civilians?

    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein’s mask slipped yesterday and it reminded us vividly of its character. As a result, I shall consider over the weekend whether the exploratory dialogue can go ahead. I shall probably decide that it should do so, because I wish Sinn Fein to become a fully democratic and peaceful party, playing a full part in negotiations with other parties. The purpose of the exploratory dialogue is to help to bring that about. As we have come this far, the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland should not be abandoned without holding Sinn Fein’s feet to the fire in face-to-face negotiations.

    Mr. Blair: May I say that I associate myself entirely with those remarks?

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conducted a review over many months into the taxation of insurance payments and had removed any uncertainty. Today, the Chancellor has popped up and announced a new and different review into part of the same problem. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about that other review on Tuesday?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is slightly confused and is again seeking to spread a little despondency. I shall try to explain it for him carefully, so that he is able to remove any misunderstanding.

    There is no new intention to levy taxes on the payments from certain insurance policies. The question that has been asked by the insurance companies is whether those payments are already taxable under existing tax laws, which date back to the last century. The insurance industry has asked the Inland Revenue to give its opinions about that.

    The Inland Revenue receives similar questions from the insurance industry and other industries routinely, week after week. When the Inland Revenue has concluded its consideration of that issue, it will report to Ministers- -not, of course, before it is ready to do so. When we have its opinion, we can consider whether the law needs changing. Before the right hon. Gentleman spreads any more misunderstandings, let me say to him that there is no record of any tax ever having been deducted from those insurance payments and, until the matter is settled for those policies under review, the Inland Revenue will not expect tax to be deducted.

    So that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of leaving out any information, let me say to the House that there is one real threat to people with private insurance. Let me quote:

    “We can close tax reliefs that are unfair, like reforming those for . . . private medical insurance”–

    the words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why he did not mention that review on Tuesday. How does what he has just said square with the fact that yesterday the Inland Revenue said that insurance payments other than those relating to mortgages were to be taxed and never mentioned any review, and why did the Chancellor say on Tuesday that it was a simple problem, that he had sorted it out in 10 minutes and that he had not even heard of the first review, never mind the second one?

    This has been not a review but a pre-election panic attack, and it bears all the hallmarks of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government–it begins in incompetence, falls into confusion and ends in chaos.

    The Prime Minister: We were carefully weaved round to the preordained soundbite again. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that he is not nearly as silly as he sought to make out in what he just said.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that such routine inquiries are made of the Inland Revenue by industry and industry spokesmen all the time. They are answered by the Inland Revenue. There are huge numbers of them. They are not all referred to Ministers. Sometimes, when they are made public, the right hon. Gentleman tries to make a great scandal about them.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows well that there is nothing in this today and there was nothing in it on Tuesday. All he is about is the usual Labour party scaremongering for cheap political gain.

    Sir Giles Shaw: May I return my right hon. Friend to more relevant matters? I add my congratulations to many on the skill and courage that he showed in persisting with his programme in Londonderry yesterday.

    In relation to the magnanimous gesture that my right hon. Friend has just made in respect of discussions and preliminary talks, will he please ensure that any discussions or talks are not conducted under any form of duress and that, when such talks start, item one on day one in the first hour will be that of somehow getting rid of arms, which continue to overshadow the prospects of Northern Ireland with the threat of violence?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right that there can be no suggestion of discussing those matters with Sinn Fein in the exploratory talks under duress.

    Let me also say to my hon. Friend that I have no illusions about the nature of Sinn Fein or its spokesmen. The behaviour of a few hundred of its supporters yesterday showed how far it has yet to go before it becomes a democratic party, as the rest of us in the House understand the meaning of the term, “democratic party”.

    In two hours yesterday, those supporters destroyed the image that Sinn Fein has sought to build up in recent months, and the event reminds us of the nature of the people with whom we are dealing. We want to push them towards democracy. We know that it will be a tough job, but we will continue to try because it is in the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we should do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he misled the House on 25 April when he said, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the information that there were two bureaucratic staff for every three teachers was in “Social Trends”? It is not; it is in the Annual Abstract of Statistics , which goes on to say that the so-called bureaucratic staff are cleaners, catering staff and nursery assistants. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House that?

    The Prime Minister: The source of the figures is even more appropriate than the hon. Gentleman suggests: the Local Government Management Board collected them.

    What I said to the House was wrong in one respect. I said that local education authorities employed two non-teaching members of staff to every three teachers. In fact, it is not two against three but two and a half against three.

    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Having studied the report of yesterday’s debates–as I am sure he has–my right hon. Friend will have been reminded of the magnificent performance of our exporters, especially our industrial exporters. Does he agree that a number of Government policies have contributed to that success, not least privatisation, the reform of industrial relations, a sensible taxation system and inward investment, and that all those developments are threatened by the Labour party’s policies?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the remarkable performance of British exporters, including industrial exporters and exporters of services. They would undoubtedly be put at risk by many of the policies proposed by Labour, and the extra costs that those policies would impose on employers. Exports have successively reached a new record in about nine of the past 12 or 13 months. I cannot recall an occasion when that has happened before.

    I should have thought that, instead of carping, Labour Members might for once give some credit to British industry and British exporters.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern and even fear among disabled people about the Government’s proposed new tests for incapacity benefit? Does he accept that that concern is genuine, and will he dissociate himself from the disgraceful comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who attempted to brand all those people fraudsters?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He has taken a great deal of action to help disabled people, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We are as concerned about disabled people’s security of mind, and the provision of services for them, as any other party in the country. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons and is currently passing through the House of Lords, will be the biggest single advance for disabled people that we have seen in this country for many years.

    As for the new incapacity benefit, I hope that–as the Labour party sometimes claims also to be concerned about the size of the social security bill–the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be indefensible to continue to pay incapacity benefits to people who are not genuinely incapable of work. Either the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends agree with that, or they do not. If they do, they have no cause to criticise the Government; if they do not, they had better stop giving us lectures about public expenditure, and admit to the increased taxation that they would have to impose.

    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that air service agreements between the United States and the United Kingdom are a matter for the United States Government and his Government and are nothing whatever to do with the European Commission?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that point and we have made our views entirely clear in that regard.

     

    Q5. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister accept that desperately ill people and their families feel agony and anguish when they cannot gain immediate admission to local hospitals? My constituent, Lilian May Wilkinson, alas, died as a result of that situation. Does the Prime Minister understand that that is one of the many reasons why today people in the city of Leicester are pouring out to obliterate the Tories from our city?

    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted a detailed reply to the difficulties that have caused the tragedy to which he referred he might have given some prior notice of the case before using it in that fashion. He knows that the overwhelming majority of people get a better service from those who work in the health service than they would find anywhere else in the world. Errors do take place in a service that size. People are human; even those who work in the health service can make mistakes.

    However, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done better to remind people that once every 16 seconds an ambulance makes an emergency call, that once every nine seconds a surgeon performs a national health service operation, that every tenth of a second someone somewhere visits his or her general practitioner and that 8 million people are treated each year. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman choose one issue, of which he gave no notice, in order to try to make that sort of political point?

    Mr. Trimble: I assure the Prime Minister that there is one party in this place which will not allow itself to be subjected to duress. I refer again to yesterday’s incident which marred the Prime Minister’s visit to Londonderry. Does he realise that the incident was not unprecedented? While it was of a slightly greater intensity than others, that sort of street demonstration has occurred regularly in the past few months and it is part of an IRA-Sinn Fein campaign to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary–a campaign which is assisted by other elements, some of whom are within the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have protected society from terrorism for the past 25 years have his wholehearted support and that there is no question of disbanding or restructuring the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear in the speech that I gave yesterday in Northern Ireland my admiration for the work that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, not just yesterday–when I think that its members performed superbly–but over the past 25 years in seeing the people of Northern Ireland through a most difficult period in their history. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very proud record and I am happy to endorse it for the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

    I said earlier that I have no illusions about the people with whom we are dealing. I say again that peaceful democratic parties do not act in the way that Sinn Fein supporters acted yesterday. They do not act as front organisations for heavily armed paramilitaries; they do not intimidate and threaten the population; they do not break the legs of teenagers with baseball bats, as they have been doing; and they do not behave in many other thuggish ways. Of course I welcome the end of killing in Northern Ireland. However, as I said clearly yesterday and will say again and again, much of the brutal behaviour by paramilitaries must be stopped before they can begin to claim that they are democratic parties.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland Visit – 3 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his visit to Northern Ireland, made on 3rd May 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about his visit to Northern Ireland]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I look forward to meeting Families Against Intimidation and church leaders, trade union leaders. I hope to speak at the CBI at lunchtime and I have a series of other engagements. The principal reason I’m here is that I don’t think you can keep wholly up to date with what’s happening here in Northern Ireland without coming here regularly and I want to take the opportunity of coming here, listen to what people have to say, talk to them about some of the problems that we have faced, some of the opportunities that lie ahead and form my own judgements about how we proceed. So that is the principal purpose of me being here.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his comments on Ian Paisley’s suggestion that the Prime Minister’s visit was a publicity stunt]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These things are arranged a long time ago. Ian says all sorts of strange things from time to time. I have been coming back to Northern Ireland on a regular basis. I set out for you a few moments ago why I’m here. I’m here to talk to people; I’m here to listen to people. If I were concerned in stunts like that, no doubt I would be somewhere out in the midst of the local government elections visiting somewhere there. I’m here because I’m keen to see this peace process move forward.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Wellington Park – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep at Wellington Park on 3rd May 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Did you give the trade unions any reassurance on the Document?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we have been talking about – I think there are two aspects – that is one of them, that is part of it. First, I would just like to express publicly what I have said privately and that is to thank the trade unions in Northern Ireland for the work that they have done against sectarianism, originally anti-sectarianism, now non-sectarianism. I think they have played a remarkable role in the workshop to try and remove those discriminations. I was pleased to congratulate them on that this morning and encourage them to continue with their counteract programme, as I’m sure they will. What we spent most of our time discussing this morning was economic matters in their generality, including employment prospects. At the moment unemployment is falling more rapidly in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in Europe and it is falling more rapidly in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, more rapidly here therefore than anywhere else in Europe, and more people are getting into work. Now that will continue provided we are able to continue with the investment and continue with the changed and more confident aspect that exist in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire. Providing that is maintained, providing that is built upon, providing we can carry that process to a conclusion, then I think the economic future for Northern Ireland is infinitely brighter than Northern Ireland has seen at any stage in its history, so there is a very great prize for Northern Ireland, and I’m very keen to ensure that we carry the process forward: firstly, for self-evident political reasons, but secondly, because the economic changes it will make to all the people in Northern Ireland today and in the future will be very remarkable. We’re on our way but there’s a long way still to go.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Hillsborough Castle – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s statement at Hillsborough Castle on Wednesday 3rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good morning.

    Let me just say a brief word or two about the meetings I have had thus far this morning. I had a meeting over breakfast with the Church Leaders. This is one of a whole series of meetings I have had over the last couple of years and I can assure you that there will be more meetings of the same sort in the future. The purpose of this was to brief the Church Leaders on where we are at the moment with the process in Northern Ireland, to seek their views on what the community are saying and to discuss a range of matters relevant to Northern Ireland.

    Much of that discussion was private but I can simply say this morning that I value very much the contribution the Church Leaders have made. It has in my judgement been significant in keeping this process moving forward and I intend to maintain very close relationships with them in the future.

    As you will know I also met the Families Against Intimidation in Northern Ireland and I must say that when one sees a way from the abstract the specific problems and details that are faced by many people in Northern Ireland, it does make the problems that still exist even after the end of killing very vivid indeed. Everyone I think is delighted that for the time we have a ceasefire and people are not being killed by paramilitary groups. That is undoubtedly a great step forward. But because that step has been made it does not excuse the other criminality that still continues to be carried out by the paramilitary groups. And I would just like to make that entirely clear.

    People have begun to refer to the term ‘punishment beatings’. The first point I’d care to make about that is that punishment is not for anyone to inflict other than the legal Government of the day. It is not for paramilitary groups. And if one looks at the examples of what they are doing – young men taken out of their homes, their legs broken with baseball bats, held down and beaten, people’s homes broken into, wrecked as an example, people with their legs spiked with railings. Those are just some of the illustrations many of you will be familiar with.

    I think people need to realise that that is still being done by the paramilitary groups and that it is wholly and utterly unacceptable for any group that wishes to enter democratic life to behave in this fashion. It is not for the paramilitary groups to exclude people from any part of Northern Ireland. So let me make it beyond a doubt clear to anybody. These are acts of straightforward criminality. Whenever they occur I hope that anyone that has any evidence of any of these acts will bring that evidence forward to the police so that the police can act, secure a prosecution and secure a punishment. People in Northern Ireland must not be subjected to that sort of behaviour by the paramilitary groups and if they are to talk about peace, if they are to talk about entering the democratic system, then they are going to have to behave as democrats and that doesn’t just mean that people aren’t killed, it means that people aren’t beaten up, that their homes aren’t wrecked and that people aren’t excluded from the areas in which they live by those paramilitary groups.

    INTERVIEWER:

    There are concerns that the peace process is if not on a ‘twin track’ basis on a single track basis and that Sinn Fein are very far behind the other parties. What is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The peace process is on a single track basis. Our objective is to try and get Sinn Fein in the same position where they can join political talks with everybody else. But to do that they need to be at the same position as everybody else. That is the position we have taken right from the start and it remains the position. The purpose of the exploratory talks with Michael Ancram is to move forward so that Sinn Fein are on the same position as other people, they meet the same criteria as the other political groups and then they can enter the other political talks. That is the purpose of them.

    QUESTION (Ken Reid):

    When Michael Ancram talks to Sinn Fein next week you have said decommissioning of arms is top of the agenda. Do you actually mean the surrender of guns?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decommissioning of arms is perfectly clear. If people are prepared to enter into the democratic process then they don’t need arms. If they need arms then there must be a question about how serious they are about entering into the democratic process. Now we need to examine this matter. It isn’t a matter of semantics, it isn’t a matter of detail, it is a matter of principle and it is a matter of practice. The reality is that if Sinn Fein are to move forward as I wish to see them do, and enter fully into the democratic process as I wish them to do, and to enter into the talks with the other political parties as I hope they will do, then they are going to have to put themselves in a position where the other political parties will sit down and talk to them. And the other political parties will require them to acknowledge that guns have to come out of politics, to agree the polities of how guns will be coming out of politics and to make some progress in that effect. The Secretary of State has set that out clearly before. It isn’t a hurdle, it is something that must be done if the other political parties would be prepared to talk to Sinn Fein and if people can then see the sincerity of their wish to enter into the democratic process. Let there be absolutely no doubt I wish that progress to be made. The sooner we can justifiably move Sinn Fein forward into the talks process with the other political parties I will be delighted when we reach that day. It will be a great move forward. But there is no point in trying to move them to that position when the other parties will not talk to them because they have not met the same democratic criteria as the other parties. And that is a substantive point.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Belfast – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech in Belfast on Wednesday 3rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much for that introduction. I look forward in a few minutes to hearing what you have to say about tax, and no doubt roads, and no doubt a whole range of other matters. And may I say what a delight it will be to discuss the same sort of economic matters in Northern Ireland that I would discuss in every other part of the United Kingdom as well, and the sooner I can come here and discuss just that, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and the better it will be for everyone else.

    But we have not quite reached that happy state yet and what I want to do this morning is to talk for a while about where we are on the road towards a durable peace. A great deal of attention, especially outside Northern Ireland, has been focused on a rather narrow definition of the peace process on the exploratory talks with Sinn Fein and with the Loyalist Paramilitaries. Of course they are important, but progress in Northern Ireland runs much wider and much more deeply than that, its seeds were sown long ago and people in all walks of life are contributing. You and your fellow businessmen are contributing. Those who have long worked for fair employment and against sectarianism are discrimination are contributing. The churches, the community workers, groups fighting courageously against intimidation and violence. And the police, not just in protecting the population with the army’s help, but extending crime prevention and community policing. And of course those democratic politicians who, throughout the troubles, have stood against violence and exclusively for constitutional methods.

    That common determination to move forward is, I believe, the surest guarantee that Northern Ireland will have a better future. Our task, everyone’s task, is now to create a rolling tide for peace that no-one can withstand. I want to see the people of Northern Ireland confident in themselves, confident in their economy and confident that the political system can produce a lasting agreement. And I think the signs of progress are beginning to show. Unemployment here is now at its lowest point for 13 years. Employment, the number of people in jobs, is at an all time high. Tourism is growing dramatically, there will be 20 percent more visitors this year spending an extra 200 million pounds, and there are going to be new hotels to house them.

    And since the Belfast Investment Conference there have already been 20 possible new investment projects. In the last week Seagate have announced a large expansion creating 300 jobs in Londonderry; Dairy Young [phoentic] is bringing 500 jobs to a new investment in Craigavon; and Mivan [phoentic] of Antrim have announced double profits. I hope we are going to hear further success stories at the Washington Investment Conference later on this month.

    So I believe that your growth challenge, an important initiative is an initiative that is catching that rolling tide for peace that I referred to. It comes at a time when Northern Ireland exports are growing even faster than those of the United Kingdom as a whole, and the United Kingdom as a whole is leading the field in exports across the whole of the European Union.

    Peace is boosting business confidence, just as growing prosperity itself reinforces peace. So I think the moment is right for business, in partnership with government, to accelerate growth. And we need to make sure that this peace I speak of extends right across the community, that it meets the challenges of a new situation. This morning I had the opportunity of discussing some of those challenges with church leaders, with trade union leaders, and with representatives of Families Against Intimidation and Terrorism. And later on this afternoon I will be seeing how the RUC are responding to the challenges that they face.

    And one challenge of course is to deal with paramilitary criminality, with extortion rackets, with intimidation and with a vicious phenomenon of what are called punishment beatings. Since the ceasefire there has been an unwelcome increase in vicious paramilitary assaults, the mis-named punishment beatings. I met, as I said a moment ago, Families Against Intimidation and Terror this morning and they told me that they had counted 97 assaults since 1 September, at least one of which led to a young man’s death, a young man not yet 17 who killed himself as a result of what are euphemistically called punishment beatings.

    They told me of other things as well. Another 16 year old boy whose legs were smashed on both sides with iron bars for 10 minutes while he lay on the ground with a paramilitary foot on his body, holding him in place while he was beaten. The family is forced out of Northern Ireland for speaking out against terrorism. And I met a mother who, like other grieving relatives here, cannot be at peace in her mind because the paramilitaries murdered her son 17 years ago and they have still not told here where that body lies so that she can give her son a decent Christian burial.

    That is not politics. That is barbaric criminality. And everyone in the community should help the police and the courts to combat it, and no-one who aspires to democratic politics in any way should defend or in any way tolerate such unspeakable activities. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, whenever they have any knowledge of any incident like that, any group that seeks to exclude someone from part of Northern Ireland, that takes upon itself punishment of some sort that they have no proper legal authority to take upon themselves, I hope anyone with any information of that sort will have the courage to take that information to the police so it can be properly dealt with, properly investigated, the perpetrators arrested, tried and if found guilty suitably punished properly in accordance with law.

    It is a difficult job, policing in Northern Ireland. I have a great admiration for what the RUC have achieved. They are already responding to the challenge of civilian policing throughout all of the community. But it does need the help of the community, not wilful obstruction of the crime prevention campaigns or intimidation of new recruits, the whole community needs to be involved to help develop policing for a Northern Ireland at peace and to break down decades of suspicion and distrust.

    Over the years the RUC has withstood the most intense assault and it has made many sacrifices in the cause of impartiality, courage and professionalism. As it is increasingly freed from the threat of terrorism, I believe it can serve the whole community as never before. The men and women of the RUC have seen Northern Ireland through the past 25 years, they have defended democracy, they have defended the rule of law, they deserve our support and they will get it and we will stand by them.

    Let me mention also the trade union leaders whom I met this morning and who play an important part in your lives as businessmen. They too have played a remarkable role often where passions burn most strongly in bringing all sides together. They have helped rid shop floors of destructive sectarianism, they have shown that people in Northern Ireland can and do work together in the workplace to the benefit of everyone and Northern Ireland as a whole. And for doing so they deserve their share of the credit for Northern Ireland’s success.

    Let me now for a few moments just turn to the political process. Paddy Mayhew and his colleagues will shortly begin a further round of talks with the parties. Those talks have one overriding objective – to move towards agreement on the widest possible basis on a stable and harmonious future for Northern Ireland. Such an agreement has always eluded us, it will not come quickly or easily now. But without question, we have a better chance of achieving it than we have ever had before.

    In the two framework documents we identified the issues that need to be addressed. There has been a wide debate about those issues, different views have been expressed, sometimes with more passion than accuracy. Hard questions have been asked. We now want to have a constructive discussion with the political parties on the way forward, about the issues in the two documents and about their own ideas as well on a political settlement. And encouragingly some meetings have already taken place between the political parties themselves.

    Mr Vice-Chairman, I am in doubt that with your support and with the support of the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland which seeks a stable and just future, there is a basis for a lasting settlement, a settlement which the parties can honourably agree and the people will be prepared to support in a referendum. This is a process with a single track. Sinn Fein, through their own actions, have left themselves further back than others, but they can advance down that track and we wish to see them do so. We want all parties in Northern Ireland to be full participants in a democratic, political and exclusively peaceful process.

    And that is one of the main purposes of the exploratory dialogue with the Loyalists and Sinn Fein. When Michael Ancram joins the dialogue with Sinn Fein next week it will be an historic moment. It will also be an historic opportunity because we want to explore how Sinn Fein and the Provisionals can best demonstrate their exclusive commitment to peaceful methods by putting away violence and by putting away the instruments of violence. They know what is required of them. We and the Irish government spelt this out in the Downing Street declaration and have done so on many subsequent occasions. There will be no tricks and no traps, just the opportunity offered by the Downing Street declaration to Sinn Fein to join in the political process on the same basis as other parties with a democratic mandate, the basis of exclusively peaceful methods and a commitment to abide by the democratic process, the basis of a level playing field on which no-one threatens violence or intimidation.

    When we began many people did not see the Downing Street declaration a a realistic basis for a ceasefire. They were wrong. Some now argue that it is not realistic to expect the paramilitaries to dispense with their arsenals. They too are wrong. It is neither realistic, nor acceptable, as we come to the end of the 20th century, for parties in our democracy to front private armies. And this is why I have said, and the Taoiseach has said, and President Clinton has said the decommissioning of arms is so important. And that is why we and the Irish government have worked on a joint plan for decommissioning.

    I can put it no better than the recent Irish Times editorial which said, and I quote: “Sinn Fein can be under no illusion that the question of IRA arms must be resolved before it can be an equal partner in political talks”. That is the end of the quote. To sit at the same table, Sinn Fein must gain the confidence of the other parties, by making a commitment to progressive disarmament and by beginning a verifiable process of decommissioning.

    Over the months the government and the security forces have responded in innumerable and imaginative ways to the new opportunities of the ceasefire. The people of Northern Ireland have responded themselves to those opportunities. It is now time for the paramilitary organisations and their political representatives to pay heed to what the people of Northern Ireland are seeking and are saying and to respond to that.

    I have no doubt that it is realistic to expect them to take these essential steps and we shall help them to do so in every way that we can. I spoke earlier of confidence. In the Downing Street declaration we offered a fair deal for everyone who embraced peace, and you can be confident, and they can be confident, that we shall stand by that pledge.

    You yourselves are helping-to generate confidence through your growth initiative. Every week, every month, has helped to build more confidence in that rolling peace process. The tide is carrying Northern Ireland away from violence and towards an enduring peace. With growing and visible economic success, an unshakeable political resolution, a much better future for Northern Ireland is at hand.

    There is a new atmosphere out there in Northern Ireland, a willingness to think afresh. People here, people I have spoken to today, people who have suffered terribly from violence over the years, they want to take down barriers and make peace irreversible, to make the price for going back to violence unbearable for those people who might seek to go back to violence.

    After 8 months of ceasefire people can see no cause, no reason and no sense in the illegal arsenals which still impede progress. Neither can I. An opportunity to remove them, an opportunity to come fully into the democratic process is there, it is there for everyone with courage and vision to take that opportunity.

    I believe that the time has come to put those weapons aside forever and to invest only in peace. That is the chance that is at hand, that is the chance that I hope everyone will take.

    We for our part will do our best to bring those talks satisfactorily and honourably to a conclusion that will lead to a permanent peace in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is there. If we have to be patient, we will be patient. If we have to be bold, we will be bold. But we see that chance of peace and we don’t wish to see it lost. My hope is that everybody will see that peace and that chance in precisely the same way and we may be able to carry it through to fruition.

    I come back frequently to Northern Ireland. Every time I return I am refreshed in my view of the opportunities that exist here. I know in listening to what you have to say in a few minutes I shall find that view reaffirmed yet again and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to express it this morning.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 4 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Tuesday 4th April 1995.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Good afternoon. Please be seated. I am delighted to welcome Prime Minister Major back to the White House. Throughout this century the United States and the United Kingdom have stood together on the great issues that have confronted our people. Our common cause has been at the heart of our success in two World Wars and of course in the Cold War. In just the last two years British/American cooperation has played an essential role in allowing us to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, in promoting peace around the world and certainly in expanding free trade.

    Today we have continued working in that tradition. We have had excellent discussions, we have covered a broad range of issues, we have, as always, found much to agree about.

    On security issues we agree that the inevitable process of NATO expansion must proceed smoothly, gradually and openly, without any surprises. This is essential for extending stability, democracy and prosperity throughout Europe. We believe that in parallel with the enlargement of NATO the Alliance must develop and maintain close ties with Russia.

    We affirmed our shared commitment to a political settlement in Bosnia, based on the Contact group plan. The conflict is being prolonged because of Bosnian Serb intransigence. Renewed fighting will not end the conflict but only lead to more bloodshed and continued stalemate. The Prime Minister and I also vowed to continue working together to contain the Iraqi threat to stability in the Persian Gulf region. We are deeply concerned that Saddam Hussein could be regaining the ability to build weapons of mass destruction. We are determined that Iraq must meet all its United Nations obligations. This is no time to relax sanctions. The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously under Saddam’s tyranny and they do deserve the help of the international community. But easing up on a regime that oppresses people will not help them. So while there can be no compromise, the United States, the United Kingdom and Argentina have put forward new proposals at the United Nations to get food and medicine to the people of Iraq. We hope other nations will join these efforts and support our Security Council Resolution and pressure Saddam Hussein to stop the needless suffering of his innocent citizens.

    Prime Minister Major told me a great deal about his recent trip to the Middle East. We both strongly believe this is a hopeful moment for broadening the circle of peace. The United States and Europe must continue to fight the efforts to derail the peace process by those who prefer destruction to peace. It is clear that for peace to take root in the region more economic assistance is vital. Peace and prosperity depend upon one another. I applaud the United Kingdom’s investment programme in the West Bank in Gaza, as well as its debt relief measures for Jordan. We must all continue to support those who take risks for peace.

    Nowhere is this more true than in Northern Ireland. I salute the Prime Minister for the tremendous efforts he is making to bring an enduring peace to Northern Ireland. Today Northern Ireland is closer to a just and lasting settlement than at any time, in a generation, thanks in large measure to the vision and courage of John Major. He and Prime Minister Bruton of Ireland together introduced the joint framework which provides a landmark opportunity to move ahead towards a political settlement, one that will be backed by both of Northern Ireland’s communities. We also agreed that the paramilitaries of both sides must get rid of their weapons for good so that violence never returns to Northern Ireland. And we must work to increase economic opportunity in that area, their prospects have been blighted by bloodshed for too long.

    Next month our White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland will help to expand the ties between the United States, Northern Ireland and Ireland’s border counties. Building those kinds of bonds will help to lead to a better life for all the people of the region. The Prime Minister and I discussed some other issues. We agreed on the need for an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the review conference that begins this month. To further the cause of non-proliferation the Prime Minister joins me in calling for full implementation of the framework agreement we negotiated with North Korea to end that country’s nuclear programme. And we discussed the need to adapt our international institutions to the challenges of the next century at the G7 Summit in Halifax. I was particularly impressed by the thinking that the Prime Minister has done on this profoundly important issue. The United States and the United Kingdom, after all, helped to shape those institutions, they have served our interests for the last half-century.

    With the extraordinary relationship between our countries as important as ever, I am confident that we can make the changes necessary and work together to advance our shared values and our common interests, to promote peace, democracy and prosperity in the years ahead and of course in the century ahead.

    Finally let me say that we discussed the ceremonies that will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Because of my prior commitments I have asked the Vice President to represent me and all Americans in London on 8 May at services that will commemorate the great wartime bravery and sacrifice of so many Britons. And I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Major when we go together to Moscow on 9 May to pay our respect to the heroism of the Russian people in that conflict.

    Mr Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much.

    We have had the opportunity today for a good humoured, worthwhile, productive and very far-reaching series of exchanges on a whole range of matters. The President has set out much of the agenda we discussed and I will not reiterate what the President said except to say that in his remarks he spoke not just for the United States but for the United Kingdom as well. I share the views he expressed and I will not reiterate them.

    We spent some time looking forward at two separate matters which I think are of some importance to both our countries and of wider importance as well. The first of them the President just touched on, and that was the review of the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations that we agreed with the other G7 Heads of Government at Naples last year that we should undertake and return to at Halifax later this year. We have given a great deal of discussion to that and I think for a range of reasons the time is right to look at a fairly comprehensive reform of some of those institutions and we exchanged some ideas today on precisely how we might do that and agreed that we would exchange further ideas before we came to the G7 Summit. I think there is scope to rationalise some of the international financial institutions.

    We wish to look particularly, in addition to that, at the United Nations where there are a number of overlapping functions. I am a very strong supporter of the United Nations and I wish to see the United Nations a successful organisation for the year 2000. It does seem that looking at some of the areas of the UN could well do with up-dating, refreshing, to make sure that they are entirely applicable to the problems they will have to face in the late 1990s and beyond the turn of the century. And I hope very much that we will be able to get together with some more of our ideas and float those in greater detail when we get to the Halifax Summit later on this year.

    We also spent some time looking at the commonality of interest that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States. There are a huge range of areas where there is common interest, not just those that were discussed, the agreements that we have in terms of policy towards Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Bosnia and a range of other areas. But beyond that I think there is a commonality of interest in the future security and prosperity of the Central and East European states, and also with two other matters. First, the further extension of free trade, to which I wish to return in just a second, and second with looking together and combatting together some of the problems of instability, extremism and terrorism that we can begin to see in parts of North Africa, parts of the Levant and parts of the Middle East, and we spent some time considering how we might address some of those problems in the future. It was necessarily a discussion that dealt with problems that may arise, and dealt in some cases frankly with generalities, but it was an opportunity to look forward rather than to just discuss the immediate topical problems that we face at the moment.

    One area of growing importance that we touched on was the possibility of seeing how we can build on the Uruguay Round agreement of a year or so ago, and see how we can move forward to deal with much freer trade in financial services, for example, removing many of the non-tariff barriers that still exist between western Europe and the United States, and seeing how, step by step, we can move forward to a much greater element of free trade between North America and the Western European nations. That is something that needs to be done, I think it is something that is of immense benefit, and I found our discussion on that immensely productive and it is one I know that we will both return to in the future.

    So I found the discussion, not just on contemporary matters of use, but I found the sharing of ideas about how we deal with the development of the transatlantic relationship to deal with the problems that are going to arise in the future, and also the examination of the common transatlantic view on many of the international problems around the world to be a very worthwhile and a very refreshing discussion and I am delighted we were able to have it.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, I would like to ask you about two tax matters at home. Congress has sent you a bill that would provide health and insurance tax reductions for self-employed people, but it also allows billionaires to avoid taxation by renouncing their citizenship. Will you sign or veto that measure? And secondly, the House tomorrow takes up the Republican tax bill that provides benefits for a range of businesses and also a 500 dollar child credit for families earning up to 200,000 dollars a year. I know you have your own approach but can you live with this Republican approach?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    In answer to your first question, I strongly support restoring deductability to self-employed people for the cost of their health insurance, I think it is untenable to have a different standard for them than for corporations, and that was a big part of my Health Care Reform Bill last year. So I am on record strongly in favour of that, as a matter of fact I would like to see it expanded. I am deeply troubled that the Conference Committee took out a payment mechanism by simply asking billionaires who made their money as Americans, who largely made their money in the United States, to pay the taxes they owe and instead to let them evade American income taxes by giving up their citizenship now that they have it made. So I am going to have to look at that very closely and examine whether there might be some other opportunities to achieve that objective. But it is just wrong for us to walk away from that, that is just wrong.

    On the second matter, you know what my views are on that. We have two objectives here. I support the tax relief for the middle class, I support greater tax standards. I think it should be much more focused on things that will raise incomes in the short-term and in the long term, so I favour a sharp focus on educating people and raising children, on families and education, but we cannot afford a cut of that magnitude and do the right thing by the deficit. And we should not be cutting taxes in ways that benefit very wealthy Americans and require us in turn to cut education which will weaken our country as a whole. Education is the middle class social safety net, if you will, it is the key to our economic future as well. So I think that is a big mistake, I think it is too big, we need to focus on the deficit and we don’t need to be cutting education and investment in our future to give tax relief to people who don’t really need it.

    QUESTION (John McIntyre):

    Could I just ask the President whether he accepts the British Government’s analysis that Sinn Fein has not yet gone quite far enough on the decommissioning of arms to justify ministerial talks and also could I ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the backing he has got from the Administration on that issue?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think it is a decision entirely for the British Government to make in negotiations with Sinn Fein when ministerial talks are appropriate.
    I will say this: I was very clear when the Adams visa was granted with permission to fund raise that there must be an agreement – a commitment — in good faith to seriously and quickly discuss arms decommissioning. Without a serious approach to arms decommissioning, there will never be a resolution of this conflict so I would hope there would be no difference in our position on that because I think the Prime Minister is right about that, we have to deal with this arms decommissioning issue and I know that there is an attempt by the Government to work with the paramilitaries on both sides to achieve that objective and that is what I think should be done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add to that point. We have already started discussions at ministerial level with the Loyalist paramilitaries on decommissioning and those discussions are proceeding. What we are seeking to do is to have exactly the same discussions on exactly the same terms with Sinn Fein. If Mr. Adams is serious about moving towards peace – and he has repeatedly spoken about it – then he needs to discuss with the British Government the question of the modalities of decommissioning the arms. We need to know how it can be done, when it can be done, what needs to be done, a whole series of details but that matter has to be discussed.

    I think it is right for that matter to be discussed at ministerial level with Sinn Fein and we have made it perfectly clear that providing they are prepared to discuss that matter – we have suggested what the agenda might be and we are in discussion with them about that – then I think it is right for us to move to ministerial discussion on the decommissioning of arms.

    What is absolutely clear is that unless we are able to make progress on decommissioning of arms, there will be no possibility of Sinn Fein sitting down with the other democratic political parties in Northern Ireland, they simply won’t be prepared to talk about reaching a settlement until there has been progress on decommissioning of arms so I very much hope Mr. Adams will embark upon those discussions speedily.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, could you elaborate on something you said in your opening remarks about your concerns with Iraq in their apparent ability to build weapons of mass destruction?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I didn’t say they had the apparent ability, I said they could be regaining it. I want to be very specific about it. What I mean by that is that unless Mr. Ekeus and the international inspectors can certify that they are in full compliance with all the relevant United Nations Resolutions, then we have no assurance that they are not regaining the capacity to move forward with weapons of mass destruction. That is what I mean but that is all I mean about it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you say you don’t have the evidence?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That they are doing that now, I do not and I want to make clear that is why I used the word “regaining”.

    The United States position, which the United Kingdom has supported and for which I am very grateful, is that we should not relax these sanctions until there is full compliance with the Resolutions. The Resolutions were not passed in a careless way; they are carefully worded Resolutions designed to assure the international community that this cannot happen and unless those, Resolutions are complied with, the international community cannot know that this cannot happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share that view absolutely and I think we need to await Mr. Ekeus’s report; from all I hear, it is not going to be satisfactory about the way Iraq are behaving. We are concerned about the humanitarian aspect of people in Iraq; there is a Security Council Resolution which I trust is going to be passed which will open up a better possibility for Saddam Hussein to sell oil in order to feed people in Iraq; it is an option that will be there, I very much hope he will take that option but on the general relief of sanctions, until he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full and we have seen independent verification that he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full, then we entirely agree that there can be no relief whatsoever from the sanctions that have been imposed.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, having broken bread with Gerry Adams, could you person-to-person, man-to-man, recommend that he speak with Gerry Adams himself?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That is a decision for the Prime. Minister to make in the context of the peace process. I said on St. Patrick’s Day when I spoke then and I will say again that we are where are today because of the risks that John Major has been willing to take for peace and they have been considerable risks to himself, to his party, to his government because he knows that this matter must be resolved and I applaud that.

    The details of the decision-making must be made by the participants and that is a decision for him to make.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with all due respect, your nuclear policy is filled with inconsistencies. You want to stop Russia from building a nuclear reactor in Iran; you want to ease sanctions against Pakistan which we believe is developing nuclear weapons; you want Egypt to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with other states in the area and you never try to persuade Israel, which does have a nuclear arsenal, to sign the treaty. Can you explain?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, the United States does not want Russia to give the capacity to Iran because we don’t want that to be the beginning of their increased capacity to develop nuclear fuel and technology for other purposes and given their conduct, I think that is the right policy and I don’t have any problem with it.

    With regard to Pakistan, the simple question there is whether the policy we have pursued in the last few years is achieving its objectives and whether we will be a stronger force for peace and reconciliation and ultimately for the defanging in terms of weapons of mass destruction in the area if we change our policy or if we stay with it. I think we should seriously review the policy. If you look at the number of people in those countries in South Asia, the potential they represent for the future and the powder keg on which they sit because of their problems, the United States it seems to me has an obligation to do the very best we can to bring about the best result and the most peaceful result and that is all we are doing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct but about producing weapons]

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We don’t support that. We want everybody to be a member of the Non-Proliferation regime; we want everybody to do that and that is why I said what I did to President Mubarak of Egypt. Our position is that we want the largest number of people possible to participate in the Non-Proliferation regime and to go forward with its requirements and we want to keep as many states non-nuclear as possible and we are doing our best to reduce the nuclear threat by reducing the number of nuclear weapons that we have in agreement with the Russians and the states of the former Soviet Union.

    I think that our policy is consistent if you look at what the objective is; the objective is to reduce the threat of nuclear war to the world in the future and to reduce the threat of other weapons of mass destruction. There still is no more significant obligation I have to future generations and that is the common thread running through all these policies.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton):

    Given that the Tories [indistinct] ideologically and given that we understand that Tony Blair of Labour may be coming here soon I wonder if I could ask you how important you think your personal relations are for the relations between our two countries?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, I think that in foreign policy the differences are not easily discernible by party. We have, as you heard today, a broad overlap and indeed in our country the differences among us here in America as Americans in foreign policy don’t tend to break down along party lines. For example, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader supported the position I took on debt relief for Mexico which was opposed by a number of members of their party and a number of members of mine so I think that at the end of the Cold War in this country and I sense throughout Europe perhaps there are forces arguing for a kind of inward-looking approach, a little bit more if not more isolationist, a disengaged approach and there are others who believe we must still continue to broaden the frontiers of relationships, to expand trade in order to support democracy and prosperity. I am in that latter group, Prime Minister Major is in that latter group. Last year, at the G7 meeting, we were the two strongest proponents of expanding opportunities for economic integration of the countries there so I just don’t believe that there is a necessary partisan breakdown to our common objectives in the world community.

    Secondly, I think we have got a good personal relationship and I feel very comfortable about where it is; I think it is honest and open and it endures occasional disagreements but the agreements are far more numerous and over the long run should be the shaping factors of our relationship.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The fact of the matter is that we know one another well enough and the relationship is good enough to have those disagreements and it doesn’t affect the broad swathe of agreement that exists between the two countries. I was fascinated to see that you referred to differences between parties, not within parties, and I think that is a great advance [Laughter]. I am delighted you put it that way!

    Let me just make a broader point really about the Anglo-American relationship.

    At almost any time, it would be astonishing if there wasn’t some measure of difference on an issue between two sovereign governments whether they happen to be Conservative or Labour in the United Kingdom, Democrat or Republican in the United States but against that, I think you have to look at the huge range of things in which the instinctive outlook between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government is exactly the same.

    If you run down most of the great issues of the moment, relationship with Russia, relationship with the Middle East, relationship on terrorism, relationship with Iran, relationship with Iraq, present policy on Bosnia, you won’t find a scintilla of difference between the British Government and the United States Government. If you look at the two nations that were foremost in propounding a free trade agreement – the GATT Agreement – and taking that forward, you will find the same relationship between the British and American governments.

    As for looking forward, I spoke a few moments ago of two areas where we have actually been looking forward today together at what we might actually do in the future and as for whether the relationship is good enough, perhaps I can just give you a practical example.

    If you were to spend a weekend, Adam, on one of our nuclear submarines, you would find a Trident missile on it. I am not sure you could travel on anyone else’s submarine and find a Trident missile on it and I hope very soon in the future that you will be able to see Tomahawk Cruise missiles in the United Kingdom armoury and I am not sure anybody else will have those. They are practical illustrations of the extent of the closeness of the defence, security and other relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States and the fact of the matter is it is sufficiently close – and has been sufficiently close for a large number of years – to enable the President and I to have the occasional disagreement if we want without any harm coming of it.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to go back to the issue of Russia. You said that you do not want the Russians to go forward with their plans to sell nuclear plant to Iran. What, if anything, did you talk about in terms of putting some real pressure on them? Is there anything you can do at this point to stop it from going forward and if they do go forward, will this put a damper on the Western relationship with Russia?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are continuing to have negotiations and discussions with them about it and I think that is all I can really say at this time because we are in the midst of our conversations.

    I thought Helen was going to ask me the question which I thought you asked me the last time which is are we trying to discourage Russia from selling to Iran the technology we are trying to finance in North Korea? The difference is that when I became President I found a full blown nuclear programme in North Korea which I am trying to take down and I don’t want to leave some future President of the United States and the people of Britain with a problem in Iran. If they have to try to take it down, I am going to do the best I can to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    A lot of Americans are still questioning whether you can really rely on Russia in any way?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let’s don’t jump the gun here. We are having these serious discussions, we are working it through. We have a lot of interests in a democratic and a reformist Russia and the Prime Minister and I talked about it at some length today and I think that they have done better economically than either the Prime Minister or I thought that they would a couple of years ago in terms of pursuing the path of reform. They have continued to honour their constitution and their electoral system and obligations to democracy and we are going to have differences from time to time but I wouldn’t assume we can’t work this one out; we are going to keep working hard on it.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the President mentioned your ideas on the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN. How much have you worked that up in detail and what would it actually involve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is developing rather than been developed. We agreed last year that we needed to look at some of the overlap there was in the Bretton Woods institutions and see how we could look at bringing the United Nations a little more up-to-date.

    If I could just give you a couple of illustrations, if you mean have we yet got a detailed worked-out position between the United Kingdom and the United States, the answer is no, we haven’t. We have both been looking separately, as we agreed we would do at the G7 summit last year, at the sort of ideas we might bring forward for discussion with partners at Halifax later on this year and the sort of the things that we are looking at – by “we” I now mean the United Kingdom – in terms of the financial institutions, you will be of the idea we have had in the past of selling some IMF gold to help some of the poorer nations – that is still on the agenda as far as we are concerned.

    Looking at perhaps a greater degree of rationalisation of some of the activities of the IMF, OECD and the World Bank is an area we are looking at.

    We would like to look at the way in which poverty is dealt with through the UN; there seem to us to be a number of overlapping agencies, a certain amount of duplication, which could credibly be looked at. In terms of trade, we would like to see what can be done to bed down the World Trade Organisation satisfactorily. In terms of environment, I would suggest that there are some areas of overlap as well – in the UN Environment Programme and the Commission for Sustainable Development, there seem to be areas of overlap.

    They are just specimen samples of the sort of things we are looking at. I emphasise we are in the early stages of that examination. We haven’t reached any conclusions but I think those are matters we must examine.

    Other things I would like to see us examine at the summit would be to look more comprehensively at crime, drugs and money-laundering; we had a G7 task force on money-laundering some time ago, that has been successful, I think we should re-visit that given the nature of the problem and given the problem that exists internationally with crime and drugs and I think we would like to look a little more carefully at what might be done in terms of conflict prevention. Those are just broad headlines of some of the areas we are looking at; we shared them in general outline today; we will come to them in detail at the summit.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you.

  • PMQT – 28 February 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Q1. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of rail privatisation on the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The franchising director will consult on his draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail. I am confident that the outcome will improve the quality of service enjoyed by the passenger.

    Mr. Kennedy: Given the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Scotland, he will be aware of the widespread concern about the future of rail services, not least the impact that the withdrawal of sleeper services, motorail, the steam engine on the West Highland line, and so on will have on the tourist-oriented economy of the western highlands in particular. Given that degree of concern, will the Prime Minister agree to a meeting at the appropriate time to discuss this matter further?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I believe strongly that rail privatisation will improve the service, not least because a privatised service will have access to new sources of funds to increase investment in the rail service.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s direct question, of course I would be prepared to meet him at an appropriate time, but it might be more helpful in the first instance if he were to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will, naturally, try to assist him.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that nearly three years ago he told the nation, “Vote Conservative on Thursday, and the recovery starts Friday”? [Interruption.] When will the recovery start for all those who have seen their real standard of living decline since then? When will it start for the people I saw in the Selly Oak jobcentre yesterday where skilled factory workers are being offered £150 a week, security guards are being offered £2.40 an hour and care assistants £2.25 an hour? When will they get the feel-good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady cares to look at the published figures, she will see that we moved back into growth almost immediately after the last general election, precisely as I had forecast. If she is concerned about what is happening to the economy, she might bear in mind that it is now growing at about 4 per cent. a year, unemployment has fallen by 400,000 in the last year alone, exports have hit record levels in nine out of the last 13 months, investment is rising, manufacturing productivity is rising and, for the first time since records began, the number of people in work in manufacturing industry is rising. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell her constituents that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that he made in Glasgow on Friday night to a cross-section of the Scottish business community? Does he recall that his comments were widely welcomed? Is he aware that the Scottish business community feels that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers will cost productive jobs in Scotland and threaten the Union?

    The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, recall speaking to 1,000 Scottish business men in Glasgow on Friday. I am in no doubt that they believe that a tax-raising assembly in Scotland would not be in the interests of Scottish business, not be in the interests of Scottish prosperity and not be in the interests of future investment in Scotland. That is strongly my view. I believe that it was also theirs.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads– [Interruption.] Does he share the anger– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not barrack from sedentary positions.

    Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads of privatised utilities–this time, the National Grid Company–and will he at last act to stop such abuses?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do find these payments as distasteful as the right hon. Gentleman–as do, I dare say, many other people as well. Where they cannot be justified, I believe that they bring the system into disrepute. I believe that directors have a duty to consider that, and I hope that they will. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Greenbury committee is examining those matters. Its recommendations will be addressed, of course, to companies and to shareholders. When its recommendations are available, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that may require legislative back-up. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very time consuming.

    Mr. Blair: But, Madam Speaker, he has the golden share in this company. Why will not he then use it?

    The Prime Minister: There are a wide number of issues to be addressed, not just this, and the right hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to examine what they are. First, we must address how best to promote complete and open disclosure of the remuneration of directors–that is necessary so that shareholders can have the full facts–and, secondly, how to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on the performance of the company, and not provided as windfall gains. I believe that that is rightly where the greatest public concern is now concentrated. I believe that that may require stricter criteria for the price at which the shares are issued and the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters will need to be examined.

    I share the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is not the job of Government to substitute their commercial judgement for that of individuals. When we have the judgement that is now being provided, we will examine it with great care.

    Mr. Blair: For these privatised utilities, why will not the right hon. Gentleman use the golden share or give the regulator the power? Does he not realise that, until he acts to stop these abuses, he will be seen as a willing partner in a public scandal, where monopoly millionaires are paying themselves monopoly money?

    The Prime Minister: People who have listened to these exchanges may suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared that question before he had listened to the earlier answers. If he had listened to the earlier answers, he would have known that there was no point in asking that question.

    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the weekend about decommissioning and the surrender of arms were as welcome as they were necessary? May I encourage the Government to stick to their word on that matter, otherwise the so-called choice that the people of Northern Ireland face will not be a real choice? It will be a choice subject to blackmail, intimidation and abandonment of a community that deserves our support and protection.

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend will know, the community has had our support and protection, with a large number of troops there, for the past quarter of a century. I can tell my right hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members in the House that those British troops will stay there to protect people in Northern Ireland for so long as it is necessary. My right hon. Friend need have no concern but that we will keep to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

     

    Q4. Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Soley: Has the Prime Minister made up his mind yet whether he agrees with his Chancellor that monetary union is not a threat to the nation state?

    The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing in detail all the matters that relate to our European position, and the right policies for this country, tomorrow. I shall do that tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman will then be in no doubt.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Unless my right hon. Friend has even half a mind to pull Britain out of Europe, could he explain to the House, and more particularly to the fishermen of Britain, how else they are to recover their Dover soles?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will know, since she refers to the common fisheries policy, that there would be many parts of the seas from which British fishermen would be excluded were it not for the provisions of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and the fishing industry may not like every aspect of that policy–I am aware that they do not–but if we were to cut ourselves adrift from Europe in the way that she suggests, not just the fishing industry but a very large part of the commerce and other interests of this country would be put at risk.

    Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Prime Minister has already announced one U -turn in his policy, can he confirm or deny reports in today’s papers that the Government have abandoned their policy with regard to rail safety with the abandonment of automatic train protection? There has been a firm commitment to ATP by the Government and previous Secretaries of State since 1985. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that it is still part of his Government’s policy?

    The Prime Minister: On these matters, of course, we act on the advice that we receive from the Health and Safety Commission, as we have frequently been advised to do by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have received some advice from the commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering it.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Belgians have recently exercised border controls in a most effective manner in relation to alleged football hooligans? Will he ensure that he lobbies Belgium hard for support in the European Union so that we can maintain adequate border controls at Dover?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the action taken by the Belgian police to ensure that tonight’s game passes off without incident. I hope that the only action will be on the pitch–not off it. With regard to my hon. Friend’s second point, I have said in the past that I am determined to maintain the fair, but necessary, immigration controls at the border that we have at present, and we intend to do so.

     

    Q7. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister recall that, about a year ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced an investigation into the impact of dividend payments on investment, but that was dropped after the intervention of Lord Hanson? Since then, investment as a proportion of gross domestic product in Britain has declined to 14.6 per cent., which is the lowest figure since the first quarter of 1955. Given that the increase in dividends since the Tories came to power is £22 billion, which is money that has been dragged away from investment, is it not time to resuscitate that investigation?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to see what is actually happening both to manufacturing industry and to wider investment. If he does that, he will see the growth in manufacturing industry and see that industries that were dead or dying are now strong again, and exporting. He will see that British Steel has just increased production at its Llanwern plant by 30 per cent. He will also see a motor industry which was on its knees which will be a net exporter of motor cars before too long, and he will find that this country exports fibre optics, cameras and a whole range of products that were not available some years ago, all as a result of fresh investment in this country.

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Chester unemployment has fallen yet again? It is down by 2 per cent. on last month, by 14 per cent. on last year and by 42 per cent. on eight years ago. Does he recognise the fact that, as well as inflation being at its lowest level for a generation, in Chester inward investment is at record levels and year-on-year growth is up by 4 per cent., productivity is up by 6 per cent. and exports are up by 14 per cent? To what or to whom does he attribute that encouraging state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister: I am indeed encouraged by those statistics, both for Chester and for the rest of the country. It is not simply the growth, or the drop in unemployment, that is welcome. Also welcome is the fact that there is a physical growth in the number of people in employment, as well as a significant drop in the number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe that that development is set to continue, and I imagine that everyone will welcome that fact.