Tag: Republic of Ireland

  • 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.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Northern Ireland Peace Process – 22 February 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Northern Ireland peace process, made in an interview on 22nd February 1995.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why people should support the framework document].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, they are the product of a great deal of discussion going back as far as 1991 as far as the Strand 1 document is concerned, and secondly, because the ambition I think of everyone in Northern Ireland – all the unionist leaders, the Nationalist leaders, everyone in Northern Ireland – is to try and entrench a secure, peaceful, prosperous future for Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wished to bring the people close to the new partnership].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that I would use the word partnership, I would use the word agreement. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there is a unique circumstance in Northern Ireland, nowhere else has there been the same sectarian divide for so long as exists in Northern Ireland. We have seen the fruits of that divide and they are not the sort of fruits that we would wish for this generation or the next generation. If we can bring people together by agreement partly by restoring political accountability in Northern Ireland, then we will set the basis for a better future for the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland than their predecessors had. I think that is worth aiming for.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Unionists would just say no].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may point you back two years, there are many hurdles that have been overcome. I don’t deny the hurdles that still have to be overcome, but if you and I had sat here two years ago, would you imagined this day could have taken place? Would you have imagined we would have had a Joint Declaration agreed? Would you have imagined we would have been able to agree a framework document of this sort? Would you have imagined we would be able to put plans for a new Assembly? Would you have contemplated that we had six months of peace in Northern Ireland? I could stretch that list a long way. The unimaginable of two years ago has been achieved, the unimaginable of two years ahead must now be begun.

  • Text of the Joint Framework Document – 22 February 1995

    Below is the text of the Joint Framework Document, issued by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on 22nd February 1995.


    A shared understanding between the British and Irish Governments to assist discussion and negotiation involving the Northern Ireland parties

    1. The Joint Declaration acknowledges that the most urgent and important issue facing the people of Ireland, North and South, and the British and Irish Governments together, is to remove the causes of conflict, to overcome the legacy of history and to heal the divisions which have resulted.
    2. Both Governments recognise that there is much for deep regret on all sides in the long and often tragic history of Anglo-Irish relations, and of relations in Ireland. They believe it is now time to lay aside, with dignity and forbearance, the mistakes of the past. A collective effort is needed to create, through agreement and reconciliation, a new beginning founded on consent, for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands. The Joint Declaration itself represents an important step towards this goal, offering the people of Ireland, North and South, whatever their tradition, the basis to agree that from now on their differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful political means.
    3. The announcements made by the Irish Republican Army on 31 August 1994 and the Combined Loyalist Military Command on 13 October 1994 are a welcome response to the profound desire of people throughout these islands for a permanent end to the violence which caused such immense suffering and waste and served only to reinforce the barriers of fear and hatred, impeding the search for agreement.
    4. A climate of peace enables the process of healing to begin. It transforms the prospects for political progress, building on that already made in the Talks process. Everyone now has a role to play in moving irreversibly beyond the failures of the past and creating new relationships capable of perpetuating peace with freedom and justice.
    5. In the Joint Declaration both Governments set themselves the aim of fostering agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent. A vital dimension of this three-stranded process is the search, through dialogue with the relevant Northern Ireland parties, for new institutions and structures to take account of the totality of relationships and to enable the people of Ireland to work together in all areas of common interest while fully respecting their diversity.
    6. Both Governments are conscious of the widespread desire, throughout both islands and more widely, to see negotiations underway as soon as possible. They also acknowledge the many requests, from parties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, for both Governments to set out their views on how agreement might be reached on relationships within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands.
    7. In this Framework Document both Governments therefore describe a shared understanding reached between them on the parameters of a possible outcome to the Talks process, consistent with the Joint Declaration and the statement of 26 March 1991. Through this they hope to give impetus and direction to the process and to show that a fair and honourable accommodation can be envisaged across all the relationships, which would enable people to work constructively for their mutual benefit, without compromising the essential principles or the long-term aspirations or interests of either tradition or of either community.
    8. Both Governments are aware that the approach in this document presents challenges to strongly-held positions on all sides. However, a new beginning in relationships means addressing fundamental issues in a new way and inevitably requires significant movement from all sides. This document is not a rigid blueprint to be imposed but both Governments believe it sets out a realistic and balanced framework for agreement which could be achieved, with flexibility and goodwill on all sides, in comprehensive negotiations with the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland. In this spirit, both Governments offer this document for consideration and accordingly strongly commend it to the parties, the people in the island of Ireland and more widely.
    9. The primary objective of both Governments in their approach to Northern Ireland is to promote and establish agreement among the people of the island of Ireland, building on the Joint Declaration. To this end they will both deploy their political resources with the aim of securing a new and comprehensive agreement involving the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland and commanding the widest possible support.
    10. They take as guiding principles for their co-operation in search of this agreement:

    (i) the principle of self-determination, as set out in the Joint Declaration;

    (ii) that the consent of the governed is an essential ingredient for stability in any political arrangement;

    (iii) that agreement must be pursued and established by exclusively democratic, peaceful means, without resort to violence or coercion;

    (iv) that any new political arrangements must be based on full respect for, and protection and expression of, the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland and even-handedly afford both communities in Northern Ireland parity of esteem and treatment, including equality of opportunity and advantage.

    1. They acknowledge that in Northern Ireland, unlike the situation which prevails elsewhere throughout both islands, there is a fundamental absence of consensus about constitutional issues. There are deep divisions between the members of the two main traditions living there over their respective senses of identity and allegiance, their views on the present status of Northern Ireland and their vision of future relationships in Ireland and between the two islands. However, the two Governments also recognise that the large majority of people, in both parts of Ireland, are at one in their commitment to the democratic process and in their desire to resolve political differences by peaceful means.
    2. In their search for political agreement, based on consent, the two Governments are determined to address in a fresh way all of the relationships involved. Their aim is to overcome the legacy of division by reconciling the rights of both traditions in the fullest and most equitable manner. They will continue to work towards and encourage the achievement of agreement, so as to realise the goal set out in the statement of 26 March 1991 of “a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands”.
    3. The two Governments will work together with the parties to achieve a comprehensive accommodation, the implementation of which would include interlocking and mutually supportive institutions across the three strands, including:

    (a) Structures within Northern Ireland (paragraphs 22 and 23) – to enable elected representatives in Northern Ireland to exercise shared administrative and legislative control over all those matters that can be agreed across both communities and which can most effectively and appropriately be dealt with at that level;

    (b) North/South institutions (paragraphs 24- 38) – with clear identity and purpose, to enable representatives of democratic institutions, North and South, to enter into new, co-operative and constructive relationships; to promote agreement among the people of the island of Ireland; to carry out on a democratically accountable basis delegated executive, harmonising and consultative functions over a range of designated matters to be agreed; and to serve to acknowledge and reconcile the rights, identities and aspirations of the two major traditions;

    (c) East-West structures paragraphs 39-49) – to enhance the existing basis for co-operation between the two Governments, and to promote, support and underwrite the fair and effective operation of the new arrangements.

    Constitutional Issues

    1. Both Governments accept that agreement on an overall settlement requires, inter alia, a balanced accommodation of the differing views of the two main traditions on the constitutional issues in relation to the special position of Northern Ireland.
    2. Given the absence of consensus and depth of divisions between the two main traditions in Northern Ireland, the two Governments agree that such an accommodation will involve an agreed new approach to the traditional constitutional doctrines on both sides. This would be aimed at enhancing and codifying the fullest attainable measure of consent across both traditions in Ireland and fostering the growth of consensus between them.
    3. In their approach to Northern Ireland they will apply the principle of self-determination by the people of Ireland on the basis set out in the Joint Declaration: the British Government recognise that it is for the people of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish; the Irish Government accept that the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
    4. New arrangements should be in accordance with the commitments in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and in the Joint Declaration. They should acknowledge that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. If in future a majority of the people there wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, the two Governments will introduce and support legislation to give effect to that wish.
    5. Both Governments recognise that Northern Ireland’s current constitutional status reflects and relies upon the present wish of a majority of its people. They also acknowledge that at present a substantial minority of its people wish for a united Ireland. Reaffirming the commitment to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of agreement over a period among all the people who inhabit the island, they acknowledge that the option of a sovereign united Ireland does not command the consent of the unionist tradition, nor does the existing status of Northern Ireland command the consent of the nationalist tradition. Against this background, they acknowledge the need for new arrangements and structures – to reflect the reality of diverse aspirations, to reconcile as fully as possible the rights of both traditions, and to promote co-operation between them, so as to foster the process of developing agreement and consensus between all the people of Ireland.
    6. They agree that future arrangements relating to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland’s wider relationships, should respect the full and equal legitimacy and worth of the identity, sense of allegiance, aspiration and ethos of both the unionist and nationalist communities there. Consequently, both Governments commit themselves to the principle that institutions and arrangements in Northern Ireland and North/South institutions should afford both communities secure and satisfactory political, administrative and symbolic expression and protection. In particular, they commit themselves to entrenched provisions guaranteeing equitable and effective political participation for whichever community finds itself in a minority position by reference to the Northern Ireland framework, or the wider Irish framework, as the case may be, consequent upon the operation of the principle of consent.
    7. The British Government reaffirm that they will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, they reiterate that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. For as long as the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in its present status, the British Government pledge that their jurisdiction there will be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland in their diversity. It will be founded on the principles outlined in the previous paragraph with emphasis on full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights and freedom from discrimination for all citizens, on parity of esteem, and on just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities. The British Government will discharge their responsibilities in a way which does not prejudice the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland to determine, by peaceful and democratic means, its future constitutional status, whether in remaining a part of the United Kingdom or in forming part of a united Ireland. They will be equally cognizant of either option and open to its democratic realisation, and will not impede the latter option, their primary interest being to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among the people who inhabit the island. This new approach for Northern Ireland, based on the continuing willingness to accept the will of a majority of the people there, will be enshrined in British constitutional legislation embodying the principles and commitments in the Joint Declaration and this Framework Document, either by amendment of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or by its replacement by appropriate new legislation, and appropriate new provisions entrenched by agreement.
    8. As part of an agreement confirming the foregoing understanding between the two Governments on constitutional issues, the Irish Government will introduce and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution to implement the commitments in the Joint Declaration. These changes in the Irish Constitution will fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland and demonstrably be such that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contrary to the will of a majority of its people is asserted, while maintaining the existing birthright of everyone born in either jurisdiction in Ireland to be part, as of right, of the Irish nation. They will enable a new Agreement to be ratified which will include, as part of a new and equitable dispensation for Northern Ireland embodying the principles and commitments in the Joint Declaration and this Framework Document, recognition by both Governments of the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its constitutional status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland.

    Structures in Northern Ireland

    1. Both Governments recognise that new political structures within Northern Ireland must depend on the co-operation of elected representatives there. They confirm that cross-community agreement is an essential requirement for the establishment and operation of such structures. They strongly favour and will support provision for cross-community consensus in relation to decisions affecting the basic rights, concerns and fundamental interests of both communities, for example on the lines adumbrated in Strand 1 discussions in the 1992 round-table talks.
    2. While the principles and overall context for such new structures are a recognised concern of both Governments in the exercise of their respective responsibilities, they consider that the structures themselves would be most effectively negotiated, as part of a comprehensive three-stranded process, in direct dialogue involving the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland who would be called upon to operate them.

    North/South Institutions

    1. Both Governments consider that new institutions should be created to cater adequately for present and future political, social and economic inter-connections on the island of Ireland, enabling representatives of the main traditions, North and South, to enter agreed dynamic, new, co-operative and constructive relationships.
    2. Both Governments agree that these institutions should include a North/South body involving Heads of Department on both sides and duly established and maintained by legislation in both sovereign Parliaments. This body would bring together these Heads of Department representing the Irish Government and new democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, to discharge or oversee delegated executive, harmonising or consultative functions, as appropriate, over a range of matters which the two Governments designate in the first instance in agreement with the parties or which the two administrations, North and South, subsequently agree to designate. It is envisaged that, in determining functions to be discharged or overseen by the North/South body, whether by executive action, harmonisation or consultation, account will be taken of:

    (i) the common interest in a given matter on the part of both parts of the island; or

    (ii) the mutual advantage of addressing a matter together; or

    (iii) the mutual benefit which may derive from it being administered by the North/South body; or

    (iv) the achievement of economies of scale and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of effort.

    In relevant posts in each of the two administrations participation in the North/South body would be a duty of service. Both Governments believe that the legislation should provide for a clear institutional identity and purpose for the North/South body. It would also establish the body’s terms of reference, legal status and arrangements for political, legal, administrative and financial accountability. The North/South body could operate through, or oversee, a range of functionally-related subsidiary bodies or other entities established to administer designated functions on an all- island or cross-border basis.

    1. Specific arrangements would need to be developed to apply to EU matters. Any EU matter relevant to the competence of either administration could be raised for consideration in the North/South body. Across all designated matters and in accordance with the delegated functions, both Governments agree that the body will have an important role, with their support and co-operation and in consultation with them, in developing on a continuing basis an agreed approach for the whole island in respect of the challenges and opportunities of the European Union. In respect of matters designated at the executive level, which would include all EC programmes and initiatives to be implemented on a cross-border or island-wide basis in Ireland, the body itself would be responsible, subject to the Treaty obligations of each Government, for the implementation and management of EC policies and programmes on a joint basis. This would include the preparation, in consultation with the two Governments, of joint submissions under EC programmes and initiatives and their joint monitoring and implementation, although individual projects could be implemented either jointly or separately.
    2. Both Governments envisage regular and frequent meetings of the North/South body:

    to discharge the functions agreed for it in relation to a range of matters designated for treatment on an all-Ireland or cross-border basis;

    to oversee the work of subsidiary bodies.

    1. The two Governments envisage that legislation in the sovereign Parliaments should designate those functions which should, from the outset, be discharged or overseen by the North/South body; and they will seek agreement on these, as on other features of North/South arrangements, in discussion with the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland. It would also be open to the North/South body to recommend to the respective administrations and legislatures for their consideration that new functions should be designated to be discharged or overseen by that body; and to recommend that matters already designated should be moved on the scale between consultation, harmonisation and executive action. Within those responsibilities transferred to new institutions in Northern Ireland, the British Government have no limits of their own to impose on the nature and extent of functions which could be agreed for designation at the outset or, subsequently, between the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland administration. Both Governments expect that significant responsibilities, including meaningful functions at executive level, will be a feature of such agreement. The British Government believe that, in principle, any function devolved to the institutions in Northern Ireland could be so designated, subject to any necessary savings in respect of the British Government’s powers and duties, for example to ensure compliance with EU and international obligations. The Irish Government also expect to designate a comparable range of functions.
    2. Although both Governments envisage that representatives of North and South in the body could raise for discussion any matter of interest to either side which falls within the competence of either administration, it is envisaged, as already mentioned, that its designated functions would fall into three broad categories:

    consultative: the North/South body would be a forum where the two sides would consult on any aspect of designated matters on which either side wished to hold consultations. Both sides would share a duty to exchange information and to consult about existing and future policy, though there would be no formal requirement that agreement would be reached or that policy would be harmonised or implemented jointly, but the development of mutual understanding or common or agreed positions would be the general goal;

    harmonising: in respect of these designated responsibilities there would be, in addition to the duty to exchange information and to consult on the formulation of policy, an obligation on both sides to use their best endeavours to reach agreement on a common policy and to make determined efforts to overcome any obstacles in the way of that objective, even though its implementation might be undertaken by the two administrations separately;

    executive: in the case of these designated responsibilities the North/South body would itself be directly responsible for the establishment of an agreed policy and for its implementation on a joint basis. It would however be open to the body, where appropriate, to agree that the implementation of the agreed policy would be undertaken either by existing bodies, acting in an agency capacity, whether jointly or separately, North and South, or by new bodies specifically created and mandated for this purpose.

    1. In this light, both Governments are continuing to give consideration to the range of functions that might, with the agreement of the parties, be designated at the outset and accordingly they will be ready to make proposals in that regard in future discussions with the relevant Northern Ireland parties.
    2. By way of illustration, it is intended that these proposals would include at the executive level a range of functions, clearly defined in scope, from within the following broad categories:

    sectors involving a natural or physical all-Ireland framework;

    EC programmes and initiatives;

    marketing and promotion activities abroad;

    culture and heritage.

    1. Again, by way of illustration, the Governments would make proposals at the harmonising level for a broader range of functions, clearly defined in scope (including, as appropriate, relevant EU aspects), from within the following categories:

    aspects of –

    agriculture and fisheries;

    industrial development;

    consumer affairs;

    transport;

    energy;

    trade;

    health;

    social welfare;

    education; and

    economic policy.

    1. By way of example, the category of agriculture and fisheries might include agricultural and fisheries research, training and advisory services, and animal welfare; health might include co-operative ventures in medical, paramedical and nursing training, cross- border provision of hospital services and major emergency/accident planning; and education might include mutual recognition of teacher qualifications, co-operative ventures in higher education, in teacher training, in education for mutual understanding and in education for specialised needs.
    2. The Governments also expect that a wide range of functions would be designated at the consultative level.
    3. Both Governments envisage that all decisions within the body would be by agreement between the two sides. The Heads of Department on each side would operate within the overall terms of reference mandated by legislation in the two sovereign Parliaments. They would exercise their powers in accordance with the rules for democratic authority and accountability for this function in force in the Oireachtas and in new institutions in Northern Ireland. The operation of the North/South body’s functions would be subject to regular scrutiny in agreed political institutions in Northern Ireland and the Oireachtas respectively.
    4. Both Governments expect that there would be a Parliamentary Forum, with representatives from agreed political institutions in Northern Ireland and members of the Oireachtas, to consider a wide range of matters of mutual interest.
    5. Both Governments envisage that the framework would include administrative support staffed jointly by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Irish Civil Service. They also envisage that both administrations will need to arrange finance for the North/South body and its agencies on the basis that these constitute a necessary public function.
    6. Both Governments envisage that this new framework should serve to help heal the divisions among the communities on the island of Ireland; provide a forum for acknowledging the respective identities and requirements of the two major traditions; express and enlarge the mutual acceptance of the validity of those traditions; and promote understanding and agreement among the people and institutions in both parts of the island. The remit of the body should be dynamic, enabling progressive extension by agreement of its functions to new areas. Its role should develop to keep pace with the growth of harmonisation and with greater integration between the two economies.

    East-West Structures

    1. Both Governments envisage a new and more broadly-based Agreement, developing and extending their co-operation, reflecting the totality of relationships between the two islands, and dedicated to fostering co-operation, reconciliation and agreement in Ireland at all levels.
    2. They intend that under such a new Agreement a standing Intergovernmental Conference will be maintained, chaired by the designated Irish Minister and by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It would be supported by a Permanent Secretariat of civil servants from both Governments.
    3. The Conference will be a forum through which the two Governments will work together in pursuance of their joint objectives of securing agreement and reconciliation amongst the people of the island of Ireland and of laying the foundations for a peaceful and harmonious future based on mutual trust and understanding between them.
    4. The Conference will provide a continuing institutional expression for the Irish Government’s recognised concern and role in relation to Northern Ireland. The Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on issues falling within the ambit of the new Conference or involving both Governments, and determined efforts will be made to resolve any differences between the two Governments. The Conference will be the principal instrument for an intensification of the co-operation and partnership between both Governments, with particular reference to the principles contained in the Joint Declaration, in this Framework Document and in the new Agreement, on a wide range of issues concerned with Northern Ireland and with the relations between the two parts of the island of Ireland. It will facilitate the promotion of lasting peace, stability, justice and reconciliation among the people of the island of Ireland and maintenance of effective security co-operation between the two Governments.
    5. Both Governments believe that there should also be provision in the Agreement for developing co-operation between the two Governments and both islands on a range of “East- West” issues and bilateral matters of mutual interest not covered by other specific arrangements, either through the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, the Conference or otherwise.
    6. Both Governments accept that issues of law and order in Northern Ireland are closely intertwined with the issues of political consensus. For so long as these matters are not devolved, it will be for the Governments to consider ways in which a climate of peace, new institutions and the growth of political agreement may offer new possibilities and opportunities for enhancing community identification with policing in Northern Ireland, while maintaining the most effective possible deployment of the resources of each Government in their common determination to combat crime and prevent any possible recourse to the use or threat of violence for political ends, from any source whatsoever.
    7. The Governments envisage that matters for which responsibility is transferred to new political institutions in Northern Ireland will be excluded from consideration in the Conference, except to the extent that the continuing responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are relevant, or that cross-border aspects of transferred issues are not otherwise provided for, or in the circumstances described in the following paragraph.
    8. The Intergovernmental Conference will be a forum for the two Governments jointly to keep under review the workings of the Agreement and to promote, support and underwrite the fair and effective operation of all its provisions and the new arrangements established under it. Where either Government considers that any institution, established as part of the overall accommodation, is not properly functioning within the Agreement or that a breach of the Agreement has otherwise occurred, the Conference shall consider the matter on the basis of a shared commitment to arrive at a common position or, where that is not possible, to agree a procedure to resolve the difference between them. If the two Governments conclude that a breach has occurred in any of the above circumstances, either Government may make proposals for remedy and adequate measures to redress the situation shall be taken. However, each Government will be responsible for the implementation of such measures of redress within its own jurisdiction. There would be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government; each will retain responsibility for the decisions and administration of government within its own jurisdiction.
    9. In the event that devolved institutions in Northern Ireland ceased to operate, and direct rule from Westminster was reintroduced, the British Government agree that other arrangements would be made to implement the commitment to promote co-operation at all levels between the people, North and South, representing both traditions in Ireland, as agreed by the two Governments in the Joint Declaration, and to ensure that the co-operation that had been developed through the North/South body be maintained.
    10. Both Governments envisage that representatives of agreed political institutions in Northern Ireland may be formally associated with the work of the Conference, in a manner and to an extent to be agreed by both Governments after consultation with them. This might involve giving them advance notice of what is to be discussed in the Conference, enabling them to express views to either Government and inviting them to participate in various aspects of the work of the Conference. Other more structured arrangements could be devised by agreement.
    11. The Conference will also be a framework for consultation and coordination between both Governments and the new North/South institutions, where the wider role of the two Governments is particularly relevant to the work of those institutions, for example in a coordinated approach on EU issues. It would be for consideration by both Governments, in consultation with the relevant parties in the North, or with the institutions after they have been established, whether to achieve this through formal or ad hoc arrangements.

    Protection of Rights

    1. There is a large body of support, transcending the political divide, for the comprehensive protection and guarantee of fundamental human rights. Acknowledging this, both Governments envisage that the arrangements set out in this Framework Document will be complemented and underpinned by an explicit undertaking in the Agreement on the part of each Government, equally, to ensure in its jurisdiction in the island of Ireland, in accordance with its constitutional arrangements, the systematic and effective protection of common specified civil, political, social and cultural rights. They will discuss and seek agreement with the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland as to what rights should be so specified and how they might best be further protected, having regard to each Government’s overall responsibilities including its international obligations. Each Government will introduce appropriate legislation in its jurisdiction to give effect to any such measure of agreement.
    2. In addition, both Governments would encourage democratic representatives from both jurisdictions in Ireland to adopt a Charter or Covenant, which might reflect and endorse agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in Ireland. It could also pledge a commitment to mutual respect and to the civil rights and religious liberties of both communities, including:

    the right of free political thought,

    the right to freedom and expression of religion,

    the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations,

    the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means,

    the right to live wherever one chooses without hindrance,

    the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, gender or colour.

    1. This Charter or Covenant might also contain a commitment to the principle of consent in the relationships between the two traditions in Ireland. It could incorporate also an enduring commitment on behalf of all the people of the island to guarantee and protect the rights, interests, ethos and dignity of the unionist community in any all-Ireland framework that might be developed with consent in the future, to at least the same extent as provided for the nationalist community in the context of Northern Ireland under the structures and provisions of the new Agreement.
    2. The Covenant might also affirm on behalf of all traditions in Ireland a solemn commitment to the exclusively peaceful resolution of all differences between them including in relation to all issues of self- determination, and a solemn repudiation of all recourse to violence between them for any political end or purpose.

    Conclusion

    1. Both Governments agree that the issues set out in this Framework Document should be examined in the most comprehensive attainable negotiations with democratically mandated political parties in Northern Ireland which abide exclusively by peaceful means and wish to join in dialogue on the way ahead.
    2. Both Governments intend that the outcome of these negotiations will be submitted for democratic ratification through referendums, North and South.
    3. Both Governments believe that the present climate of peace, which owes much to the imagination, courage and steadfastness of all those who have suffered from violence, offers the best prospect for the Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland to work to secure agreement and consent to a new political accommodation. To accomplish that would be an inestimable prize for all, and especially for people living in Northern Ireland, who have so much to gain from such an accommodation, in which the divisions of the past are laid aside for ever and differences are resolved by exclusively political means. Both Governments believe that a new political dispensation, such as they set out in this Framework Document, achieved through agreement and reconciliation and founded on the principle of consent, would achieve that objective and transform relationships in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland and between both islands.
    4. With agreement, co-operation to the mutual benefit of all living in Ireland could develop without impediment, attaining its full potential for stimulating economic growth and prosperity. New arrangements could return power, authority and responsibility to locally-elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a basis acceptable to both sides of the community, enabling them to work together for the common welfare and interests of all the community. The diversity of identities and allegiances could be regarded by all as a source of mutual enrichment, rather than a threat to either side. The divisive issue of sovereignty might cease to be symbolic of the domination of one community over another. It would instead be for decision under agreed ground-rules, fair and balanced towards both aspirations, through a process of democratic persuasion governed by the principle of consent rather than by threat, fear or coercion. In such circumstances the Governments hope that the relationship between the traditions in Northern Ireland could become a positive bond of further understanding, co-operation and amity, rather than a source of contention, between the wider British and Irish democracies.
    5. Accordingly the British and Irish Governments offer for consideration and strongly commend these proposals, trusting that, with generosity and goodwill, the peoples of these islands will build on them a new and lasting agreement.

     

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Northern Ireland – 22 February 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on Northern Ireland, made on 22nd February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland. Almost every day there brings new evidence of the benefits of peace. The conditions taken for granted elsewhere in the United Kingdom are gradually returning. But a return to normal life in Northern Ireland requires much more than just a paramilitary ceasefire, important though that step is. It requires a permanent end to violence; and it requires a balanced political settlement under which all parts of the community can live alongside each other without fear or antagonism.

    That is the purpose of the talks process, started in 1991. We need to seek new arrangements for the internal government of Northern Ireland, for the relationship between north and south, and for the relationship between the two Governments.

    The British Government have discussed these matters at length with the Northern Ireland political parties and with the Irish Government. I should like to pay tribute to the role played by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Today we have published proposals in two framework documents, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

    Let me make it clear from the outset that nothing in these documents will be imposed. The aim is to assist discussion and negotiation with the parties in Northern Ireland. It is not an immutable blueprint.

    I urge all hon. Members and people across Northern Ireland to read and study the documents carefully. The proposals in them have been the subject of a number of leaks and misrepresentations, which have resurrected old fears. When people study and consider the documents, I believe that they will come to see that those fears are unfounded. They will see that these proposals are based throughout on the principle of consent. It is made absolutely clear that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland.

    I am a Unionist who wants peace for all the people of the Union. I cherish Northern Ireland’s role within the Union. I have no intention whatsoever of letting that role change, unless it is the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland to do so.

    I turn to the documents published today. I begin with strand 1, which sets out the Government’s ideas for restoring local democracy in Northern Ireland as part of a full political settlement. That paper has been prepared after consultation and talks with the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government played no part in its formulation.

    The circumstances in Northern Ireland are widely recognised to be unique in the United Kingdom. There are two traditions with very different political aspirations. What is needed is a structure of government that combines democratic legitimacy with a system of checks and balances. That calls for mechanisms different from those appropriate in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    It was those historic differences that meant that, until 1972, there was a Northern Ireland Assembly with a wide range of functions. Since then, however, those functions have been the direct responsibility of central Government–unlike anywhere else in the United Kingdom, where many of them are carried out by elected local authorities. In Northern Ireland, local accountability has been lost, and political talent has been unused.

    That is why the Government are now putting forward plans for a new elected Assembly, with responsibilities for a range of subjects at least as wide as those in 1972. The proposals envisage that the Assembly might have a single chamber of about 90 members, elected for a four or five year term. To reflect the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, they would be elected by a form of proportional representation. Where appropriate, decisions in the Assembly would be taken by a weighted majority.

    There would be a system of committees to oversee the work of the Northern Ireland Departments, and there would be a separate panel, elected from throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, with a consultative, monitoring and representational role.

    The new Assembly would not have tax-raising powers, and would receive its funding from central Government. It would have legislative powers for the functions transferred to it, although it would be for consideration whether it would assume legislative powers from day one, or whether such responsibility would be transferred progressively.

    The Assembly would have responsibility for functions that are, in many cases, devolved to local government elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including education and housing. Policing and security matters would, however, remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and of this Parliament, at least for as long as the terrorist threat makes the active support of the Army necessary in Northern Ireland.

    I now turn to strand 2, the arrangements for north-south co-operation. We have today published a joint framework document, “Frameworks for the Future”, which has been agreed with the Irish Government. That sets out a series of proposals as a basis for further discussion.

    One crucial component is that, as part of an overall settlement, the Irish Government have committed themselves to introducing and to supporting proposals to amend article 2 and article 3 of their constitution. Those amendments would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.

    Paragraph 21 of the joint framework document spells out that they would “demonstrably be such that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contrary to the will of a majority of its people is asserted”.

    That intention is unambiguous, and was reaffirmed by the Taoiseach this morning.

    For their part, the British Government would, in those circumstances, enshrine in our legislation the principle that Northern Ireland’s future should reflect the wishes of its people. That would be done either by amending existing legislation or by introducing new legislation. That would not affect the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over Northern Ireland, which could only be changed by further primary legislation.

    The joint framework document also sets out proposals for a new north-south body, which could carry out a range of consultative, harmonising or executive functions. It would not have free-standing authority: it would be accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Irish Parliament respectively. The Northern Ireland members of the body would be drawn from relevant elected heads of Department from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and would naturally reflect policies determined by that Northern Ireland Assembly. Fears have been expressed that this body would, in effect, give the Irish Government joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland. That is emphatically not the case. It is a proposal for co-operation by agreement between Northern Ireland’s representatives and their counterparts in the Republic. Decisions in the body could only be taken where there was agreement north and south. There is no question of a majority outvoting a minority. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament would each therefore have an absolute safeguard against proposals it did not approve of.

    The north-south body would be established by legislation in this Parliament and in the Irish Parliament. It would discharge or oversee only such functions as were designated for it. There is no predetermined list of those functions: that would be decided only after discussion and agreement with the political parties in Northern Ireland. It would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament to decide whether any additional functions should subsequently be designated.

    The document also sets out how European Community programmes might be handled in a north-south body. It envisages that the north-south body would be responsible for implementing and managing those programmes which are explicitly designed on a cross-border or island-wide basis. There are currently very few such programmes. Otherwise, the north-south body would have primarily an advisory role.

    The House will wish to be reassured that responsibility for determining policy towards the European Union would remain, as now, with the United Kingdom Government.

    Let me now turn to strand 3, where the joint framework document sets out proposals for future relations between the British and Irish Governments.

    These envisage that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be replaced by a new agreement between the two Governments. As now, there would be a continuing intergovernmental conference, with a permanent secretariat. The intergovernmental conference would be the forum in which the two Governments would jointly keep the new arrangements under review.

    It would be open to either Government to bring up concerns about breaches of the new arrangements and to discuss how they might be resolved. This is the so-called “default mechanism.” But there is no question of this process giving the Irish Government the right to take action in respect of the internal government of Northern Ireland. The framework document explicitly sets out that

    “There would be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government; each will retain responsibility for the decisions and administration of Government within its own jurisdiction.”

    As I have sought to emphasise, these documents are intended as a contribution to the talks process. They set out ideas that the Government believe represent a balanced and realistic way forward that could command support across a wide political spectrum in Northern Ireland.

    The next step will be for further negotiations to take place with the political parties in Northern Ireland. In those negotiations, others will be naturally be free to put forward their own proposals. I very much hope that everyone will agree to negotiate seriously. There is too much at stake for anyone to stand aside from these discussions.

    If agreement is reached in the negotiations, the outcome will be put for approval to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. I should equally make it clear that there is no question of putting proposals to a referendum before there is agreement between the main political parties.

    There is a triple safeguard against any proposals being imposed on Northern Ireland: first, any proposals must command the support of the political parties in Northern Ireland; secondly, any proposals must then be approved by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; and thirdly, any necessary legislation must be passed by this Parliament. That provides a triple lock designed to ensure that nothing is implemented without consent.

    The prize from a successful outcome to the peace process is immense. We want to see the people of Northern Ireland permanently free from the fear of terrorist violence. We want to see institutions that reflect the different traditions in Northern Ireland in a manner acceptable to all, and we want to enshrine the principle, both north and south, that no change in Northern Ireland’s constitutional position can take place without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

    I believe that these documents make an important contribution to that process, and I commend them to the House.

    Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome it. As he knows, we have supported the Government throughout the peace process, in times of difficulty as well as in times of progress, and we do so again today without hesitation. People in Northern Ireland should know that, whatever party is in government, this process will continue, pursued, I hope, with the same patience and determination, and motivated by the same desire for peace.

    I also applaud the courage and skill of the British and Irish Governments, and, indeed, all those politicians and people who have contributed to this process. In particular, I salute the courage and fortitude of the people of Northern Ireland, who, throughout all those dark years of terrorism, none the less kept faith with peace. I emphasise too that these are documents for consultation; they are not diktats. They seek balance; they threaten no one’s fundamental interests, and therefore no one should fear discussing or debating them.

    May I put to the Prime Minister the following points of detail on the document which outlines the new institutions in Northern Ireland, and on the joint framework document? I would make one preliminary point. Although, of course, the Government will want to negotiate on the basis of their own documents, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any other documents tabled by other parties will be seriously examined and taken into account in this process?

    On the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, the Prime Minister will not, of course, expect me to agree with his assertion that devolution is suitable only for one part of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what legislative powers he envisages, not only executive powers, for the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, and over what specified areas? When he says that the funding will come from central Government, is it to come in block, or will specific sums be earmarked for particular areas?

    As to the north-south body, again as a preliminary point, will the Prime Minister confirm–I think that it may be helpful–that the principle of cross-border co-operation already exists in certain areas such as transport and tourism and energy? It is therefore not an unknown concept.

    Can we be clear about the functions of this new body? In respect of the executive functions, am I right in thinking that the new body will be responsible for European Union programmes, but only those designated as covering both north and south? In implementing those programmes, will it deal directly with the European Union or only through the Governments? In that connection, will it have its own executive officers and civil servants?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman also spell out the difference between the north-south body’s executive functions and what are called its harmonising functions? Is it right that, in respect of the harmonising areas, such as education or industry or agriculture, the obligation is to try to agree a common policy, but in specified parts of those areas only, and that, in any event, that implementation is through either the Assembly or the Dail?

    As to the third strand, relations between the Irish and UK Governments, the document talks of both Governments seeking ways of enshrining the protection of civil rights in their respective jurisdictions. What does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the UK will do to implement that, and is it by way of legislation? Will he be a little more precise about the reciprocal constitutional change needed in the UK as a result of the package that he has announced? What will be the next step? When does he foresee talks beginning, and between whom?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of those proposals will come about at all without consent? Parties must agree, people must agree, Parliament must agree. Consent, as I think that he was saying, is of the absolute essence. It has at its core the principle of self-determination. The people of Northern Ireland will choose their own future. There lies the power and there lies, also, the responsibility–a responsibility to be exercised not just for today, but for future generations.

    The house of peace has stayed shut and locked in Northern Ireland for too many years. The agreement is the key to its door. I have no doubt that entering in will pose its own risks and challenges, but how much better that will be than to stay for ever outside, battered by the elements of hatred and mistrust. Today, therefore, across the House of Commons, let hope shape history–the hope of the ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland, of both traditions, that they should be freed from the tyranny of violence, to enjoy the peace which they deserve and which we have all sought for so long.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and for the unqualified manner in which he expressed that support. He is entirely right to illustrate to the House that nothing in the document is a diktat–nothing seeks to be imposed, nothing seeks to be threatening, and everything is there to be determined by consent and agreement.

    I shall deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman has posed. Will the Government, in the talks yet to continue, be prepared to accept and consider other documents? The answer, in unqualified terms, is, yes, we will welcome other contributions to the debate, and we shall wish to explore them in the discussions that lie ahead.

    The devolved Assembly will deal with many matters traditionally dealt with in local government, and some beyond. It will deal with education, health and agriculture–broadly, the range of responsibilities that existed in 1972 when Northern Ireland, for historic reasons, had its own Assembly. Funding is not for each individual aspect of responsibility, but will come in a block, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated.

    As the right hon. Gentleman said, cross-border functions currently exist.

    The right hon. Gentleman’s description of the executive element was entirely correct, so I need not reiterate that. The Executive will deal with the European Union through the Government and will have its own secretariat, drawn jointly from north and south–answerable to the body and to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Dail. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely right about the obligation to try to agree, and I need add nothing more to that.

    The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about civil rights is, yes, we shall seek to determine civil rights. That was a matter raised by each of the political parties–I think, without exception–with whom we had discussions. There is much work still to be done beyond the principle that we shall seek to enshrine such rights.

    Bits of the document may require legislation, but it is as yet unclear precisely which ones. Where necessary, we shall proceed, with agreement, towards such legislation.

    On the subject of reciprocal changes, we shall seek to enshrine the principle of consent in the joint declaration–which was echoed again in the documents this morning–in British legislation. That could be done by amendment to the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or by fresh legislation. It will not affect Britain’s sovereign right to govern Northern Ireland.

    I reiterate that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the principle of consent is writ large through every page, every action and every purpose that exists within the document.

    Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most common criticism made of the Anglo-Irish agreement by people in Northern Ireland was that it was imposed, and that it would have been far better if it had been advanced on the basis of a contribution to further discussions between the parties in Northern Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my judgement, the basis on which he has announced the framework document today precisely meets the criticisms made at that time? I congratulate him on that.

    Are not my right hon. Friend and all the brave people of Northern Ireland, to whom the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred, entitled to expect that the political leaders of those people should now carry out the undertaking that they claimed to me to be capable of discharging? They should now recognise the document as a basis for discussion and as an opportunity to negotiate and achieve a sensible and lasting agreement.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that he is entirely right about the resentment and concern that was felt in Northern Ireland over the manner of the birth of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I think that that legacy has haunted subsequent efforts to move towards finding a better way forward in Northern Ireland.

    As my right hon. Friend says, the new legislation will be discussed. I hope that it will remove the difficulties that existed at the time of the Anglo- Irish Agreement precisely because it will be discussed and, if legislation proceeds, it will proceed only after that discussion.

    I am grateful that we have already received some written proposals from some political parties–the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party–for consideration alongside the framework document. Of course we are prepared to consider them. I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider them with the political leaders themselves, and consider also the propositions that we were asked to provide, and have now provided, in the framework document.

    Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): Is the Prime Minister confident that the Irish Republican Army has fully understood his message which is enshrined in the framework document: that, when it resumes its violence, it should not bomb the Baltic Exchange, since his Government have now distanced themselves from 90 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland who have eschewed violence over the past 20 years and who have vested their faith in the ballot box?

    How can the Prime Minister endorse paragraph 9 of the document? It says: “The primary objective . . . is to promote and establish agreement among the people of the island of Ireland”.

    What does that have to do with Northern Ireland? How can the Prime Minister endorse harmonisation of policies between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom by the will of its people demonstrated at the ballot box? When the Prime Minister comes to write his memoirs, does he believe that, like his predecessor, he will regret his part in driving Northern Ireland back at least 10 years by promoting this dishonourable blueprint for a united Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: I understand the strong feelings that the hon. Gentleman has about this matter, but I beg him to examine more carefully what is in the document, and the way in which the document intends to proceed. I cannot accept that it drives Northern Ireland back 10 years to try to seek a peace which may be entrenched permanently in Northern Ireland after generations of mistrust and hatred. That is the purpose which underlies all the actions in the document.

    As far as the Irish Republican Army and a message to it are concerned, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone in Northern Ireland that our determination to resist terrorism has always been there, it is there now and it will remain there. That is why we have had British troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for a quarter of a century. That is why I increased the number of British troops in Northern Ireland. That is why I am prepared to say to the hon. Gentleman at this moment that, for so long as I am here, I will keep troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for as long as it is necessary to protect the people of Northern Ireland against terrorism, from whatever source it may come.

    If the hon. Gentleman seeks my message to the Irish Republican Army, it is this. While it bombs and kills, it has an implacable opponent in Downing street and in the Government. If it is prepared to talk and return to democratic politics, we will offer it a ready ear. We will discuss with it how it may return to democratic politics, so that the next generation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency may not face the privations, the murders, the sorrows, the hardships, the deaths and the funerals year after year that he and his constituents have suffered in the past.

    That is the game in which we are engaged at the moment. Where do I find myself in Northern Ireland? I place myself alongside 100 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland and believe that it is right to take action to move out of the spiral of despair that existed there and move towards the possibility of a permanent peace. I know that it will be difficult; I know that it cannot be done without difficulty, and perhaps it cannot be done without disagreements, setbacks and problems. But I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right to try. I do not believe that any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom–Conservative or non-Conservative–could or should sit in Downing street without actively trying to find a way out of the problems which have existed for so long.

    As for harmonisation, when the hon. Gentleman studies the document he will not find things in it which will cause him fear. I happily say to the hon. Gentleman that I will sit down with him and go through the document paragraph by paragraph, line by line and word by word to try to reassure him that there is nothing in it for him to fear, and everything in it which may make progress to what he wishes for his constituents and for Northern Ireland and what I and this House wish for his constituents and for Northern Ireland–a permanent peace and a prosperous future.

    Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): As my right hon. Friend tries to reassure those with misgivings about the document, will he take every opportunity to emphasise that it imposes nothing but rather suggests a possible way forward, that its primary purpose is to promote meaningful debate between the political parties in Northern Ireland, and that those parties may, if they wish, during bilateral talks with each other or with the Government, bring forward alternative suggestions?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The document seeks to impose nothing, and its primary purpose is debate. My hon. Friend touches on a very important point when he talks about the possibility of further bilateral discussions with the political parties. It will be necessary for further bilateral meetings with the parties, both to discuss proposals which they may have and to seek wherever necessary to take the parties through our proposals and discuss with them any fears which they may have about the proposals in the document. My door is open, as are those of my Ministers, for those bilateral discussions, which could start at any moment.

    Mr. John Hume (Foyle): Could I begin by placing on record on behalf of myself, my party and the people we represent our deepest appreciation to the Prime Minister and the Government for the enormous effort they have made, and for putting this problem at centre stage and at the top of their agenda, because this is the greatest human problem facing the Government and the peoples of these islands? May I also pay tribute to the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for placing the matter above party politics–where it belongs–so that we can have a totally unanimous approach to tackling this serious problem?

    Does the Prime Minister agree that, when all the words have been taken away from the document published today, the fundamental message is that the problem we must solve in Ireland is not that we are a divided piece of earth but that we are a divided people? Does he agree that that can be resolved only by agreement, and that all the resources to which both Governments are now committing themselves should be committed to promoting that agreement? Agreement threatens no section of our people.

    I say to the Unionist people that I understand their fears and tensions, given the 25 years which we have been through. We have said before that this problem cannot be resolved without the participation and agreement of the Unionist people, because of their geography and numbers. We know that they do not trust Governments. All they are now being asked to do is trust themselves, and to come to the table. If they do not agree with this, they should come to the table and join all the parties and both Governments as soon as possible, to begin the difficult process of reaching agreement.

    Let us all recognise that all our past attitudes have brought us to where we are, and have built those terrible walls in Belfast. If those walls are ever to come down, all sides must re-examine those past attitudes and come forward with new arrangements and relationships, which respect our differences but which at last harness all our energies to spill our sweat together, and not our blood, so that the next century will be the first century in the island’s history in which we have no killings on our streets, and no young people have to go to other lands to earn a living.

    The Prime Minister: I know that that has long been the dream of the hon. Gentleman, and the whole House knows the role that he has played in moving towards it.

    The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the fact that there cannot be an agreement without taking the majority tradition in Northern Ireland entirely with it. Agreement cannot be imposed; it will not be imposed; it would not work if anyone sought to impose it. One of the problems that one needs to try to deal with is the problem of old fears and of trust. That requires consensus, agreement and a lot of discussion. I know that some people are pessimistic about whether such agreements can be reached, and whether such progress can be made. If those pessimists had been confronted two years ago with today’s situation, they would not have believed the changes that have taken place in Northern Ireland in the past two years. They would not have believed that the joint declaration could be agreed; they would not have accepted that the joint framework document would be agreed, or that we would have six months of peace, or that it would be possible for any British Government to sit down and talk to the political representatives of the paramilitaries of both sides.

    These are but a small example of the changes in Northern Ireland over the past two years. Heaven alone knows, there are difficulties enough ahead, but if we look at what has been done in the past two years and take the hurdles in the future one by one, with patience I believe that they can be overcome, trust can be forged and the old fears can be diluted. That is how I hope we shall all be able to move forward.

    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): Will my right hon. Friend accept the wholehearted support of the members of the British-Irish inter- parliamentary body, British and Irish alike, for this historic process? Will he firmly reiterate yet again that sovereignty is not at stake, and that the principle of consent reigns paramount? Finally, does he agree that it is now for the people of Northern Ireland to seize this opportunity, and to ensure that the changes that will secure the peace are made on their behalf?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and for the role that he has played for many years in Anglo-Irish relations. He is right to stress the fact that consent is paramount. I guarantee that it will remain so in the future.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Does the Prime Minister recognise that, while there are bound to be differences between the parties about the details of these proposals–we, for example, feel that a Bill of Rights should have been part of the framework–the discussion process is there to consider differences and to work out an agreement that will win the votes of the people of Northern Ireland? It is they who will decide. Is it not also clear that, when it comes to determination to maintain this peace process, the three largest parties in this House are–unusually, but absolutely–united?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had to say. The most clear-cut exposition of the fact that he is right–that the people of Northern Ireland must decide, for without them there can be no agreement–and of the fact that that is the view of the British Government, is the guarantee that I have given that, after the political parties have reached an agreement–if they can–we shall put the outcome of their discussions to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, so that all the people of Northern Ireland will have the chance to express their view on the proposals that will affect their future.

    Sir Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): As this remains the sovereign Parliament of the people of Northern Ireland, can my right hon. Friend, whose courageous persistence I salute, say what role he envisages for elected Members of this House in the parliamentary forum?

    The Prime Minister: There is of course a parliamentary forum now; it will continue. As the talks process proceeds–this follows from what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) just said from the Liberal Bench–the Government are open to propositions that would be helpful to these discussions from every hon. Member. I hope that those with positive points to put will make them. In due course, provided we get through the first hurdles of agreement between the parties and the referendum, it will of course be for this House to determine the legislation that will be laid before it.

    Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford): Although there is much in these framework documents that will not be welcomed by Unionists throughout Northern Ireland, I think it only right on behalf of my constituents to place on record our appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister is giving such priority to the problems of Northern Ireland. In addition, I add the concern and interest that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is equally taking in matters affecting peace in our Province.

    In the Prime Minister’s statement, he said that he was a Unionist. He has repeatedly said that throughout this morning. Can he therefore assure the people of Northern Ireland this afternoon, as the Union and the maintenance of the Union is the key to progress and peace within Northern Ireland, that, as a result of his new policy announced today, the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is more secure today than it was yesterday?

    The Prime Minister: There are three points that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I would thank him for his initial words. Secondly, I would say to him that the guarantee of the Union for the people of Northern Ireland lies within their own will. For so long as the people of Northern Ireland share the view that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom, they will remain part of the United Kingdom.

    Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman will also have heard the Taoiseach make it clear this morning that he was removing the claim to territory that exists in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. He set out the point about jurisdiction quite clearly this morning. That has been a source of great friction in Northern Ireland.

    I believe and hope that we are now in a position where we shall be able to remove some of the old fears that have existed, as the immediate hubbub settles around the publication of this document, and look at a practical route forward. I am willing to do that. I think that it is clear from what the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Liberal party have said that there is widespread consensus among Rt hon. and hon. Members across the House, who would be prepared to give as much time, trouble and interest as is necessary to try to solve the problems that have bedevilled Northern Ireland for so long.

    Sir James Kilfedder (North Down): May I preface my question to the Prime Minister by stating my passionate dedication to reconciliation between the two sections of our community in Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? But the Prime Minister will understand–the Leader of the Opposition referred to this–that many have died over 26 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland. My mind goes out to all those who have been murdered by the terrorists, men who now pose as peacemakers.

    With regard to the last Northern Ireland Assembly, my right hon. Friend gave the date as 1972. The last Northern Ireland Assembly lasted from 1982 to 1986, when it was brought to an end by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was the Speaker of that Assembly. It was my regret that the SDLP and other nationalists boycotted that Assembly, which was, in fact, a good basis for political progress in Northern Ireland. If that had not happened in 1982 to 1986, imagine just where we would be today.

    I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the surest foundation for political progress in Northern Ireland, as indeed anywhere else in the world, is trust and good will as well as consent. Will he therefore consider the establishment of another Assembly as soon as possible, without all the details to which I see reference in the document, which would allow elected representatives to get together, to get to know each other and to work out their own problems? As a matter of good will–I believe that that exists today in Northern Ireland–they could develop good relations with their opposite numbers in the Dublin Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: Of course, if that is the wish of the parties, we would respect and honour that wish. That is certainly a wish that may legitimately be put on the table for discussion in the manner that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

    My hon. Friend mentioned the two sections of the community for which he has affection. I believe that the best thing we can do for the two sections of the community is to continue to try to remove the strife and the problems that have divided them for so long. My hon. Friend referred to those who died in the many years of terrorism. We all feel strongly about that–hon. Members from Northern Ireland understandably more strongly, from more direct involvement than others. Our aim surely must be that no more people are killed in that fashion. I very much hope that we will be able to ensure that there are not.

    My hon. Friend referred to the Assembly, in which, as Speaker, he played a distinguished role for a long time. Of course, the surest foundation for the future is trust and goodwill. Trust and good will is what I ask for and what I seek, and what I hope will carry these talks forward.

    Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic signed the joint declaration on 15 December two years ago. They gave themselves an awesome responsibility when they committed themselves to remove the causes of the conflict, to overcome the legacy of history and to heal the divisions that have resulted.

    Does the Prime Minister agree that those responsibilities have been furthered by the framework document, which was published today, which is based on consent and which can be implemented only through agreement? Does he further agree that that primary agreement–not exclusively–will be between those people represented by the Ulster Unionist party and by our own party within Northern Ireland; and that, as two parties representing the vast majority of the people in the north of Ireland, of both traditions, we also have an awesome responsibility to pursue the noble objective of peace and to make the concessions which are going to be required, not just from Unionism but from nationalism as well; and that, if we pursue that line, then we will all be fulfilling those responsibilities?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and am grateful for what he had to say. He is entirely right that the principle determinants of a permanent peace, if it is achievable, will have been the political parties and the people of Northern Ireland. The role of any British Government, and the role of documents like the framework document, is the role of a facilitator. We will put in front of people ideas that we hope will bring them together, but it is for the political parties to decide whether those are the right ideas for their constituents and for their future, and that is what I hope that they will do.

    I will make the point, if I may, even more clearly about the joint framework document. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman implied, there on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It is not a diktat. It is there for the political parties and the people to accept it, to reject it, or to change it. But it is there for discussion, to bring the parties together, in the way that the hon. Gentleman speaks of.

    Sir John Cope (Northavon): In supporting my right hon. Friend, which I do wholeheartedly, could I ask him to emphasise to the Irish Government that the changes proposed to the Republic’s constitution are not only of the greatest constitutional importance, as has been emphasised, but are an essential prerequisite before any new north-south body can be set up, because that should be a meeting between representatives of equal administrations trying to co-operate and not with one side committed to trying to interfere in and take over the other, which is what some people fear?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and of course he speaks with great knowledge, from his own distinguished period at the Northern Ireland Office. I agree with him about the importance of the changes proposed in articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. I think that many people anticipated that there might be some change in article 3. I think that far fewer people imagined that there would be change in article 2. That is what has been agreed, and confirmed again this morning.

    The change that is proposed will address both articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. The purpose of the change will be to remove any jurisdiction or territorial claim of right over the territory of Northern Ireland, and that will remain the position while it is contrary to the will of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): The Prime Minister referred to the need for the approval of the main–the main–political parties before any proposal is put to the people by way of a referendum. Will the Prime Minister spell out precisely what he means by “the main political parties”? Will he make it absolutely clear that the threat of a boycott by any party will not be allowed to jeopardise this historic, and perhaps unique, opportunity for a peaceful settlement?

    The Prime Minister: While I seek the widest possible consensus to this agreement, what I do not wish to do is seek to place any political party, large or small, beyond the pale of these discussions, providing that they are a legitimate and democratic political party. We seek this wide agreement for the very practical reason that, if we can get the wide agreement, we will win the peace.

    What we have learnt from the history of Northern Ireland is that any significant part of the community, if it dissents, can in practice frustrate a move forward. We have learnt that from experience time and time again in recent years. It is for that reason that we will seek the widest possible agreement. I do not wish to specify which particular parties and run through them: I think that we know which the main political parties are. But there are other distinguished voices in Northern Ireland whom one might not regard as a main political party. We would seek to ensure that those distinguished voices were also heard.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his immense courage and determination in seeking to achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I think that I speak on behalf of not only everyone in the Chamber but those outside in wishing him success in his initiative and that of the Government.

    However, can he perhaps explain to me, bearing in mind that those responsible for the killing and bombing in Northern Ireland during the past 25 to 26 years have stated through their spokesman, Mr. Gerry Adams, that their sole objective is to get the United Kingdom out of Northern Ireland, how the two objectives of the peace that we all want and the union in which I and, dare I say to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister of this country believes, can be achieved?

    The Prime Minister: I think what needs to be done as far as the paramilitaries are concerned–the IRA and, indeed, the Protestant paramilitaries as well–is to disattach them from the legitimate support of the people of Northern Ireland; to disattach those who legitimately wish for a nationalist future from the violent men of the IRA. I think that that has significantly happened in the period since the joint declaration.

    It is certainly equally the case that the joint declaration has made a remarkable difference in the support that the IRA had previously received from many sources outside Northern Ireland. There is a changing tide of opinion towards those who wish to pursue by violence an end that is not legitimate.

    The other great change, of course, is that the change in the Irish constitution actually enshrines the legitimacy of Northern Ireland’s position. It is not easy to over-emphasise the significant changes that we have seen in Northern Ireland during the past few years. It is not all that long ago that the only people who would have agreed with the principle of consent in Northern Ireland would have been the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government. The principle of consent is now accepted almost everywhere. That is one illustration of the changing nature of debate in Northern Ireland that I believe will meet the point that my hon. Friend raises.

    Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): I join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and the Government of the Republic, and not least the former Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, on the work that they have done in achieving the publication of this quite historic document today.

    Is he aware that, on reading that document, careful attention is paid to the dignity, the rightful aspirations and the integrity of each of the traditional communities within Northern Ireland and, on the basis of that document, nobody has anything to fear when entering freely into discussions with the right hon. Gentleman and his Government and with the other parties in Northern Ireland; that the essence of consent is very much there? Is he also aware that, should this brave initiative, this try which is well worth making, sadly fail, at the end of the day people will have to return to the same principles that are enshrined in the documents published today?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has to say. I agree that there is nothing to fear from continuing in these discussions, precisely for the reason that has been spelt out by hon. Member after hon. Member on both sides of the House–that we proceed with consent and by agreement. It is a rational way to proceed. I believe in the politics of reason, and proceeding in this way is an illustration of the politics of reason.

    Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office for their considerable achievement in producing the document. My right hon. Friend has stated wisely that the state of emergency will continue, and that law and order will continue to be administered by the British Government. Does he agree that the state of emergency can end only when all the weapons on all sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland are surrendered? Will he further reassure the House, as he did in his statement on the Downing Street declaration in December 1993, that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am happy to reaffirm to my hon. Friend that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland, and we do not accept that term in any sense. The purpose of removing weapons is crucial to ensuring that significant progress is made in future. That, of course, is not directly dealt with in the documents published today. It is a matter under discussion with the political representatives of the paramilitary groups in the discussions that the Government are having with them at present. We are moving towards discussing such issues as the decommissioning of arms, and my hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the central importance of success in that role.

    Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): May I say on behalf of Plaid Cymru that we support unconditionally and wish well the important step that has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Government today?

    May I press the Prime Minister to clarify the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly? He mentioned that it would have functions that belonged to local government, but he also said that it was to be a legislative assembly. Local government is not a legislative tier of government. Will he confirm that there will be full law-making powers in the Northern Ireland Assembly over the functions that fall into its remit, and that we are talking about a powerful assembly for Northern Ireland, not a glorified county council?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, if that is what is wished. What we have put forward today are ideas for the political parties themselves to determine. I reiterate that it is not a prescription. The Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative functions, it would not have tax-raising powers, and it would bid for its money in terms of block grant and utilise that money.

    For many of the functions that would be devolved to it–although the hon. Gentleman makes the point about legislation, as opposed to the order-making and byelaw powers that often exist with local authorities–the Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative authority, but it would need to bid for the money, and that would be provided to it in block grant form. It would not have the power to raise resources, and it would emphatically not be a tax-raising assembly.

    Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from driving Northern Ireland back by 10 years, what he has achieved over the 14 short months since the signing of the Downing street declaration is to drive the peace process forward in a way which many people said was literally impossible at the time? He, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are to be congratulated on that. Although the north-south body refers to the designation of delegated functions, because that section also talks about the agreement of the parties, as the document does throughout, there is really no reason why all the parties should not participate in the talks on that basis.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, as he knows from his own period as a Northern Ireland Minister precisely how people feel about those issues, and precisely what the difficulties are; I am particular grateful to him for his comments with that in mind. As far as the designation of authorities is concerned, it is worth spelling out the point clearly, so that it cannot be misunderstood by people in Northern Ireland, and I would not wish it to be. In the first instance, this would be discussed among the political parties. If they agreed, there would be a referendum. After the referendum, there would be legislation in the House. The Assembly would then be set up, and any changes–any further powers that might then be devolved to the north-south body–would be devolved by the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. Agreement in the north-south body could be reached only with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    The fear that arose at one stage in the past that this would be an entirely independent, entirely autonomous, high-powered executive body that would rapidly change the mode of existence and way of life across a great swathe of functions in Northern Ireland is self-evidently wrong. I hope that that fear has been well and truly put at rest by the documents published today.

    Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. I now bring this session to an end.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 22 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference at the launch of the “Frameworks for the Future” document, with the Irish Prime Minister, Mr John Bruton. The press conference was held at the Balmoral Conference Centre in Belfast on Wednesday 22nd February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is one reason, above all, why the Taoiseach and I have come to Belfast this morning, we wish to offer the proposals that our governments have been working on, here in Northern Ireland, for Northern Ireland’s people and to their representatives. We seek to help peace but we are very well aware that only the people of Northern Ireland are able to deliver that peace. So let me say directly to them at the outset, these are our ideas that I present this morning but the future is up to you. You have an opportunity now which has not been there for many years, an opportunity to work together to build a better future and a lasting peace.

    The proposals that we launch today stem from the talks process that began four years ago in March 1991. It was agreed then by the two governments and the four participating parties that the process would have three strands: it would seek a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland; relations between the north and the south of the island of Ireland; and relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic. We agreed that it was only by addressing all these relationships together that agreement would be found across the community in Northern Ireland.

    At this press conference the Taoiseach and I are publishing the document, “A New Framework for Agreement”, which deals with the second and the third of these strands. A little later this morning I will return to this conference hall and put forward a separate document proposing new arrangements within Northern Ireland, that is of course a matter for the British government and the Northern Ireland parties alone.

    Our proposals this morning are based on several principles – self-determination, consent, democratic and peaceful methods and respect for the identities of both traditions. Consent is and will remain paramount in our policy, it is the democratic right and the safeguard of the people of Northern Ireland. No proposals for the future would be workable, let alone successful, without the consent and the active support of the people of Northern Ireland, it is they who are the people who will carry them out and whose lives would be affected by them. And that is why an eventual settlement must be agreed by the parties, supported by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and approved by Parliament, a triple consent procedure.

    Let me turn firstly to constitutional matters. On constitutional matters each government has offered crucial new commitments to this framework document. As part of a balanced agreement the British government would enshrine its willingness to accept the will of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland in British constitutional legislation. We shall embody the commitments we made in the Downing Street declaration. The Irish government would introduce and support proposals to change its constitution so that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, contrary to the will of a majority of its people, is asserted. This is a very important proposal that I welcome unreservedly. These changes would offer Northern Ireland a constitutional stability that it has not hitherto enjoyed. Its future status, by agreement between the two governments, would be irrevocably vested in the wishes of a majority of its people.

    Let me say a word about the north/south institutions. In line with the three stranded approach, we propose new institutions for north/south cooperation. The north/south body that we outline would comprise elected representatives, chosen from a new Northern Ireland Assembly and from the Irish Parliament. It would draw its authority from those two bodies, it would operate by agreement and only by agreement.

    On the United Kingdom side the north/south body would initially be set up by legislation at Westminster as part of a balanced agreement. It would come into operation following the establishment of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. Thereafter, it would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament both to operate the body and to decide whether its functions should be extended. Like all of our proposals the new north/south institutions will be a matter for negotiation, but the way should now be open for beneficial cooperation between north and south without the constitutional tensions which have been such impediments in the past. We have made suggestions about areas which might be covered in this cooperation to the advantage of both sides, but like all aspects of this document, they will be for discussion and for agreement between all concerned.

    The European Union already operates cross-border programmes between Northern Ireland and the Republic, as it does elsewhere. We propose that north and south could usefully work together in specific areas to take advantage of what the European Union has to offer. But the making of United Kingdom policy, and the responsibility for representing Northern Ireland in the European Union, will remain solely in the hands of the United Kingdom government.

    In the third of our strands we outlined a new broader based agreement to take the place of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. The 1985 Agreement was criticised because the Northern Ireland parties had not contributed to it. Our new proposals are offered for discussion in the talks process, we wish to hear the views of the parties and we envisage that their representatives would be formally associated with the future work of the Intergovernmental Conference.

    The Intergovernmental Conference would allow concerns to be expressed about any problems or breaches of the agreement reached. But there would be no mechanism for the governments jointly to supervise or over-ride either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the north/south body, it would be for each government to deal, on its own, with any problems within its own jurisdiction. This would not be a question for joint decision, still less joint action. It is very important to be clear about this as I know there have been concerns on this score.

    Our two governments have worked for a long time with patient determination to agree on this framework and I am grateful to the Taoiseach, his predecessor and the Tanaiste for their efforts and the spirit of accommodation. And I would like also to express my gratitude to Paddy Mayhew and to Michael Ancram who have worked so hard on the UK side.

    Our proposals seek to stimulate constructive and open discussion and to give a fresh impetus to the political negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations will depend not on us but on the consent of the parties, the people and Parliament. It is not for us to impose, but what we propose is an end to the uncertainty, the instability and the internal divisions which have bedevilled Northern Ireland for far too long.

    For over four years as Prime Minister I have listened intently to the people of Northern Ireland, I have visited them, consulted them, travelled more widely I believe than any predecessor throughout the province, held meetings with political leaders, church leaders, council leaders, community leaders and people from all walks of life. It is my duty as Prime Minister to maintain the Union for as long as that is the will of the people, it is a duty in which I strongly believe and one which these proposals protect. Just as people cannot be held within the Union against their will, so equally they will never be asked to leave it in defiance of the will of the majority. Consent and free negotiation are fundamental to me and they are the foundation stones of this joint document.

    In the four years of the talks process we have travelled a very long way, but not yet far enough. I know that many people will be worried, perhaps some even pessimistic, about the future. But as we look at the hurdles ahead, it is worth considering also where we have come from. The dialogue of the deaf has ended.

    For four years we have been engaged in talks, the three stranded process is becoming a reality, the Joint Declaration has been accepted, the British Government is engaged in talks with paramilitaries on both sides, we have had six months of peace, prosperity and a normal way of life are returning to Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, once accepted only by Unionists and the British government, is today accepted almost everywhere.

    These are some of the gains for everyone in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition. More gains can lie ahead if we have the courage to conduct ourselves with patience, with foresight and with consideration. To reach our destination all concerned must be ready to look to the future rather than to the past. We must put aside old shibboleths, we must show fair-mindedness and we must show imagination. The destination that I seek is a lasting and peaceful settlement. It is attainable and I believe we have taken an important step towards it this morning.

    TAOISEACH:

    Today’s new framework for agreement is a landmark event in the affairs of this island. The two governments are presenting to the political parties in Northern Ireland, and to the Irish and British peoples, a document which is the most detailed expression to date of our views on the subject of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister and I hope that the framework document will receive calm and measured consideration over the days and weeks ahead.

    It is an important and a serious text, offered as an aid to discussion and to negotiation. It presents our best judgment of what might be the agreed outcome of future talks involving the two governments and the political parties. We commend it to the parties for their careful consideration and we look forward to discussing it in detail with them at the earliest opportunity.

    May I, at this point, pay special tribute to my colleague the Tanaiste, Mr Dick Spring, and his officials, and also to the Northern Ireland Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and his team. Their determined efforts over many months have brought us to the point of being able to announce this historic document.

    The proposals that it contains are, we believe, balanced and fair and threaten nobody. No party need fear this document. To the Nationalist and Republican people this document first of all reaffirms that the British government have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland and that they will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. Also to the Nationalist and Republican people this document says that the British government will enshrine in its constitutional legislation the principles embodied in this new framework by either amendment to the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 or its replacement by appropriate new legislation.

    It will also be important to Nationalists that both governments consider that new institutions should be created for the present and future political, social and economic interconnection within the island of Ireland. These institutions will enable representatives of the main traditions, both north and south, to enter into agreed relationships. This is the purpose of the north-south body proposed in the document.

    To the Unionist and Loyalist people I would point out that the document commits the Irish government to ask its electorate to change the Irish constitution. The change proposed will address both Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution in the following ways: to remove any jurisdictional or territorial claim of legal right over the territory of Northern Ireland, contrary to the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and to provide that the creation of a sovereign united Ireland could therefore only occur in circumstances where a majority of the people of Northern Ireland formally chose to be part of a united Ireland.

    It should also be important to Unionists that the document contains a recognition by both governments of the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to their constitutional status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union or opt for a sovereign united Ireland.

    The proposals will thus challenge the two traditions on this island but will do so in an even-handed way. Neither tradition need fear the contents of the document. As I have emphasised at every appropriate opportunity, it is a framework for discussion and not a blueprint to be imposed over the heads of anyone. Its purpose is to facilitate, not to pre-empt, dialogue. At the end of the day the people of both north and south respectively will have the final say.

    The document is indeed our carefully considered response to many suggestions from the parties and others that it would be helpful if the two governments were to set out what they believed might be an agreed outcome coming out from talks, that response to suggestions has now been provided in this document.

    We are asking the parties to come to talk to us, openly and candidly, about these proposals. We believe that taken in the round these proposals offer a basis for structured discussions leading to a new agreement. It is our hope that the political parties, having given these proposals the attention they deserve, will take a similar view. There can be no doubt about the enormous desire on the part of the ordinary public here, in the rest of Ireland and in Britain, for the earliest possible resumption of political dialogue. The ending of all campaigns of paramilitary violence last autumn has created an unrivalled opportunity for such dialogue to take place now with a reasonable prospect of a successful conclusion.

    I join with the Prime Minister in appealing to all the parties concerned to grasp this opportunity. The framework document is our judgement of how things can best be taken forward. We have in our view the best opportunity now in a generation for a lasting political settlement. We owe it to the peoples of both of these islands to put that opportunity to the test.

    QUESTION (ULSTER TV):

    [Inaudible] that this is not joint authority, but considering that most of the leaks in the Times article are actually in the document that you produced this morning, how can you convince the Unionists otherwise?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I am inviting people to do is to read the document, to read it in context and not out of context, which is what they saw in the Times document. Let me give you a particular illustration about the way in which fears arose as a result of a partial leak, and often can. One of the aspects of that leak was that responsibility for education would be devolved to the north/south body, and I understand the fears that existed in the north about that, they saw every aspect of education being subsumed in the north/south body and perhaps significant changes to the traditional way in which education is managed in the north. Rubbish, absolute rubbish.

    The sort of thing that is proposed is mutual acknowledgement of qualifications north and south. At the moment a teacher qualified in the south can work in the north, a teacher qualified in the north cannot work in the south. Now that is just one tiny illustration of how, taken without the context, taken without reading precisely what is here in detail, taken without the checks and balances, taken without the explanation, a wholly wrong impression can be created. And the impression that was created was wrong and I hope that when people will study this, this is a big document, in some ways it is a complex document, what I am asking of people in Northern Ireland is to read it, to study it, to think about it, discuss it, to talk about it in their local communities, to their local political parties. Let it mature, make up their mind, think of the overall prize that lies at the end of successfully carrying forward these negotiations and make a balanced judgement on it.

    This is not the time for snap judgements, it is not the time for people to throw their hats in the air and say we have cracked the puzzle, and neither is it the time to say no this will not do. This is the time to look at it coolly, clearly, carefully, let it mature and I believe as people do that the fears that they have will be seen to be illusory. There is nothing to fear in this document, I believe, and the safeguards on the consent principle, the triple-lock of parties, people and Parliament is clearly expressed there, and I believe the fears will be seen to be dramatically overdone and the opportunities for the future are very real as a result of what has been agreed in this document.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wish I could give you a categoric answer to that, but the truth is nobody can. The Taoiseach and I both understand that this matter is only going to proceed with consent, it needs to carry people with it or it will not carry. When I referred to the hurdles ahead I meant the need to persuade, the need to convince, the need for the parties to reach an understanding, the need for the people to accept that understanding in a referendum, the need for debate and discussion over the Parliamentary legislation yet to come, the matters that need to be dealt with in terms of establishing a Northern Ireland Assembly that I will return to discuss in this hail later on this morning. Those are the hurdles that I meant. And of course in parallel to those hurdles there are the discussions that the government are holding at the moment with the paramilitaries on both sides to determine how we can return them properly to legitimate democratic politics and remove, de-commission weapons, for the general safety of people in Northern Ireland.

    They are all big hurdles and I know many people say: “But those hurdles are too big, you are never going to overcome those hurdles”. I would simply say to those people who hold those views, look back two years ago and ask yourself whether you would have been expected to be here today, this morning, with six months of peace in Northern Ireland, discussion with the paramilitaries, a Joint Declaration accepted by everybody issued just over a year or so ago and frameworks for the future that can set out a path ahead, So we are embarked upon the road, a lot has been done but a lot more remains to be done.

    QUESTION (DONALD KELLY, RTE):

    Taoiseach, in this document, is your government proposing to drop Articles 2 and 3, and are you proposing to write into the constitution the [Inaudible] of the Northern Ireland state. And since you are proposing constitutional change, would it not have been better to have the wording for constitutional amendment to be out in the open now?

    TAOISEACH:

    The position is that the government will be putting forward, at the appropriate time when agreement has been reached, proposals to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, and the effect of those amendments will be to state that they will no longer contain any jurisdictional or territorial claim of legal right on behalf of the Irish state over the territory of Northern Ireland. But they will go on to provide, however, that the creation of a sovereign united Ireland could take place in circumstances where a majority of the people in Northern Ireland formally choose to be part of a united Ireland. Those are the clear underlying principles upon which the constitutional amendment, to be presented, will be based. And they are balanced in turn by the commitment to agree to set up cross-border bodies which will ensure that where issues can appropriately and by agreement be operated on an all Ireland basis, that will be capable of happening. The one balances the other.

    As to the publication of detailed wordings, the position is that there was no final agreement reached by the previous government, who were discussing particular wordings with the British government, there was no final agreement reached on those wordings, and I came to the conclusion, in conjunction with the Tanaiste, that the most appropriate way to proceed would be to state not an attempt at a detailed text, which at the end of the day is really a matter for [Inaudible] Airan and Shanatairan [phon] to discuss, but to state the purpose that we would be seeking to achieve in terms of the constitutional amendment that we would be introducing that would give much greater opportunity for discussion and improvement in terms of the wording is concerned, rather than finding ourselves, as I said in the Doyle yesterday, involved in a hair-splitting exercise about a draft which had been considered between the two governments.

    QUESTION:

    Dr. Paisley has described this document as a declaration of war. Have you any proposals to get him off a war-footing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would regard it as a declaration for peace rather than a declaration for war. I had an extremely worthwhile, constructive discussion with Dr. Paisley and his colleagues last evening, I look forward to more in the future, there is a great deal of discussion to come. I don’t anticipate that Dr. Paisley will welcome every dot and comma in this document immediately, we will need to discuss that over a period of time, I think that is undoubtedly the case, it is always going to be the case.

    This is a balanced document but nobody – Unionist or Nationalist – is going to like everything that is in this document; there will be people who like it because they appreciate the balance that is within it but if you had asked someone who was a Unionist or someone who was a Nationalist to write down specifically what they wished to see, they would not have produced this document so of course there is a great deal of discussion; that will take time, it will take patience. Dr. Paisley, like every other political leader in the North wants, if it is at all possible, to enshrine a position where Ulster’s prosperity can grow without the troubles and difficulties of the last twenty-five years. I don’t have the slightest doubt about his commitment to that and I think on that basis we will be able to talk.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would like to add, if I may, in response to that last question and to a number of other questions that have been put in regard to this matter that it is important in looking at the cross-border institutions to refer to the precise wording of paragraphs 25 and 30; they refer specifically to the various designated functions of these bodies occurring by or as a result of agreement. The emphasis throughout this document is on reaching agreement. The purpose of the document is not to create a fait accompli but to give parties who previously wanted to know and were asking what the governments’ ideas were and who were perhaps using the absence of a clear statement from the governments as to their ideas as an excuse for not coming forward with theirs. That excuse now no longer exists, the governments have set out clearly their ideas.

    These are ideas which the governments intend to proceed with on the basis of agreement reached and I am glad to say that news of the impending publication of this document by the governments has encouraged a number of other parties to put their ideas on the table in recent days and we hope there will be many more suggestions put from other parties on the table for discussion in conjunction with this framework document.

    What we are seeking is to challenge people to think, to challenge people, if they don’t like what is in this document particularly in regard to a special matter, to ask themselves what is the problem that this document in that regard is trying to solve and then, having identified the problem, say: “Well, I don’t like the framework document’s suggestion for solving it; here is my alternative!”

    It is very important that everybody who offers a criticism of an aspect of the document should ask themselves first the question: “What problem is this aspect of the document trying to solve?” and secondly: “Have I a better way of solving that problem?” That is what we mean when we say we are challenging the parties in this document; we are challenging them to either go with this or come up with something better.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but regarding the triple lock]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not proposing to change the order of the locks. I think those are the natural and sequential order. We have learned before in the troubled history of the last few decades in Northern Ireland that unless you carry all the people with you then you don’t get where you seek to go; that often means things go more slowly than you would ideally wish, it means a great deal of patience and sometimes a touch of frustration but i think that has to be the way it is and I have set out the way in which we propose to deal with it and I don’t propose to change that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, will these North-South bodies be in place before the next general election and if not, in what sort of time-scale do you anticipate they could be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is up to the parties. As the Taoiseach has just said, we were asked to put forward proposals for discussion. We have put forward some proposals. These may not be the only proposals. If the parties don’ t like what is in here, then the parties can produce something else. We have the clear indication of where we all wish to get; if they don’t like this, put forward something else. We are prepared to discuss that.

    As to whether we will get there by the next general election, I can’t at this stage know how soon the parties will engage in bilateral discussions, after they have examined the document how soon they will sit down collectively, how soon they will reach an agreement so I can’t give you a clear indication about that. We will not unduly delay but I would rather take things securely and be sure of the progress that we have made than try and rush things ahead too fast and let the process fail so I am afraid it isn’t possible to give a date but what we do want is measured progress and we want measured progress in the peaceful atmosphere we have had recently.

    NICK CLARKE (BBC “WORLD AT ONE’):

    You have suggested over and over again that this is a consultation document. Will you not be trying to persuade people of its value and will you not in fact be a persuader for change?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out, as we were asked to do, some ideas for the parties to consider but I go back to the point that I have made and the Taoiseach has made this morning: the whole thing rests on consent and on carrying people with us; if they don’t like it, they will change it, Of course, we think these are workable ideas or we wouldn’t have produced them, that is self-evident but they are not ideas where we are going to say: “Stick to that! We don’t want your alternative!” If they have an alternative that will work and will lead to the objective that every sensible person in Ulster and beyond seeks, then we will look at those alternatives.

    To the extent that we are persuaders, we are persuaders for people to come together and examine these propositions and bring forward other propositions if we wish to that extent, we are persuaders but beyond that what we are seeking is to draw from the people collectively what they believe would be a workable proposition for the future and that is a point that the Taoiseach emphasised a moment ago; it has to be by consent, it has to be by agreement, slow, difficult, painful but the only way.

    QUESTION:

    Given the facts of the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing Street declaration and this framework document today, is it not reasonable for Unionists to consider that you are thinking ultimately in terms of an Ireland coalition as a solution to this particular problem?

    Secondly, did you ever think about throwing in the towel amidst all this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I most certainly didn’t. You may call it old-fashioned but I have a rooted objection to people killing one another and we have made some progress and it has stopped. Things have changed in Northern Ireland, you know Northern Ireland well. Everybody in this room knows that Northern Ireland has changed in the last few months. I don’t just mean the political atmosphere, I mean the atmosphere out on the streets; people aren’t searched when they go into stores, they don’t have the same worries in the morning, they don’t pick up their morning newspapers or listen to the media each morning with a new outrage. There is a different sense, a different attitude. To that extent, there is a better chance of progress for the future than we have had in the past.

    I don’t underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead but I do believe that with care and patience those difficulties can be overcome and the prize is really very great, isn’t it and doesn’t really need spelling out. The prize is so great as to be worth the effort, whatever the effort itself might be.

    As to the first part of your question, I cannot do better than to reaffirm the consent principle. I made the point a few moments ago that I am a Unionist, of course, but I am a Unionist who wants peace and a prosperous future for Unionists. It is a matter of choice: for so long as the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain in the United Kingdom, they will remain in the United Kingdom with my full support, with the full backing of the British Government and with the full support of everything that that means. If their choice is to do something different, we will accept it but it has to be their choice.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I just want to stress that the whole document right through stresses the three strands, the three sets of relationships. It is not therefore all Strand 2, all a matter of looking at the relationships in an all-Ireland context. There is Strand 1, which is a very important part of the settlement which is the internal settlement in Northern Ireland; there is Strand 2, which is the all-Ireland dimension; and there is also the East-West dimension. It is quite important that once we can normalise our relations between Britain and Ireland by reaching agreement on the outstanding differences in regard to Northern Ireland, that we can then move on to a much richer cooperation on an East-West basis between the whole of Britain and the whole of Ireland and that is something that has been stunted by the conflict here in the last seventy years and it is important to stress in that context the importance of strand 3 as well.

    QUESTION (NEW YORK TIMES):

    Could both of you say what you think the odds are that some day Sinn Fein, the major Unionist parties and of course the SDLP, will actually sit at the same table?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not a bookmaker but they are improving. The fact that the Government are now engaged in talks with Sinn Fein is evidence of that; those talks still have some way to go but progress is being made, I hope further progress is going to be made in the future.

    Once it is clear that Sinn Fein have renounced violence for good, once it is clear that action is taken on the decommissioning of weapons, then Sinn Fein becomes a democratic, legitimate political party and will be able to sit down with the British Government and with the other political parties. That day is much closer than it was a year ago.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would say the odds are about 5-1 on. I would say it is very likely that we will see that happening, I can’t say when. It may take quite a long time. There is no point in understating the serious issues that the Prime Minister has referred to that still remain in regard to the decommissioning of arms and also there is the sense in the Unionist community that they have been the victims of a campaign waged over twenty-five years in which so many of them lost their lives but I think there is a recognition on the part of both parties and their supporters that if there is to be permanent peace within Northern Ireland and in these islands, a relationship must be struck up between those two parties and I believe the inevitability of that is very strong and I think it is simply a question of finding a process of healing the wounds sufficiently so that the people concerned can sit down together. I am therefore specifically very confident that that will happen. I won’t tell you when the race will take place but I have quoted the odds!

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will decide in the discussions the extent of these bodies. That is the point we have repeatedly sought to make this morning, that these are ideas and proposals for discussion with the political parties; they will be discussed with the political parties; they will then be put to a referendum; only then will there be legislation; that broad legislation about North-South bodies will only be – if I can put it in shorthand terms – in headline terms and then further details will actually have to be agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    The position is within the hands of the political parties by agreement right the way through and once the North-South bodies are confirmed, the North-South body will be answerable to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Dail respectively.

    The fear I know exists that someone externally is going to impose all sorts of draconian things on the North-South bodies but that is not what we have in mind, What we have in mind is putting forward these ideas for discussion.

    There are obvious areas where it is very sensible to cooperate. There is cooperation that goes on now and has gone on for the last twenty or thirty years. There are areas where cooperation is self-evidently common sense and what we are asking is for people to consider those areas and consider what is in the interests of everybody in the North-South bodies and in other things as well.

    I believe in the politics of persuasion and I believe in the politics of reason and I think we will be able to let people discuss these matters and draw out the joint advantages of proceeding as we have proposed.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Could I answer that question directly by saying that what weakens the Union is the sense amongst the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland that the state doesn’t recognise their loyalty, that it doesn’t recognise their aspirations, their sense of Irish allegiance. It is that alienation of the minority community in Northern Ireland that creates the tension that in turn means that issues of the Union are constantly being questioned and raised.

    What this document is designed to do is to create new structures to which both communities in Northern Ireland will be able to give an equal sense of allegiance, that both communities will feel equally at home in their own place. If that happens, all of the issues that prompted your question will cease to be problems, people won’t see the need to ask that question any more because it won’t be a relevant question because a framework will have been created in which both communities will feel equally at home. That question is only asked out of a sense of insecurity.

    The purpose of the document is to create a comprehensive new dispensation in Northern Ireland in which both communities will feel equally at home and that is the security that can be offered to both of them, the security that there is an arrangement in place that their neighbours are as happy with as they are. As long as there are arrangements in place that their neighbour on the street or in the next housing estate is not as happy with as they are, then there is no security for anybody. That is the purpose that we are seeking to achieve in this agreed framework, a new dispensation where both communities would feel equally at home.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 20 December 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview in London, with Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, held on Tuesday 20th December 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted this evening to have had the opportunity of welcoming the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste to London where we have had the chance for the last hour and a half of running over the present situation in the peace process in Northern Ireland and looking at some of the problems that lie ahead.

    If I could say at the outset I am delighted that we have been able to agree to have this meeting so speedily; I think it is the clearest possible evidence of the absolute priority that both the British Government and the Irish Government give to making further progress to entrench the ceasefire into a permanent peace process in Northern Ireland and I am delighted with the exchange of views that we have been able to have today. We have really been looking across the whole field of what has been agreed thus far and the steps that we need to take in the future.

    We have been able to agree over the last hour and a half that we will endeavour to complete the framework document as speedily as we can; we have deliberately not put an end-date on that; we would rather get it right than get it soon but certainly we wish to make progress as speedily as possible. With that in mind, we have agreed that our officials will meet in early January to take matters further and a few days after the officials meeting, there will be a meeting at Foreign Minister level to see what further progress can be made. The Taoiseach and I of course will remain in close touch by telephone or face-to-face as necessary throughout this period with the intention of carrying this process forward.

    We looked at the progress that has been made; I have discussed also the range of areas that we need to cover; we have discussed the preliminary talks that the British Government are engaged in both with Sinn Fein and with the Loyalist paramilitaries. There are many important issues to be determined in those talks, many in relationship to Sinn Fein, many in relationship to the Loyalist paramilitaries as well. We share the view that substantial progress needs to be made on the decommissioning of arms not just with Sinn Fein but also of course with the Loyalist paramilitaries as well and there are a range of other important issues that need to be discussed.

    I found this first meeting with the Taoiseach very refreshing; I am very encouraged about the determination that the Irish Government retains to continue to make progress in this matter. I am delighted we were able to meet so speedily and I shall very much look forward to our next meeting.

    I will invite the Taoiseach to say a few words about our meeting and then we will endeavour to take a few questions.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    The important thing I would like to stress is that we have met so quickly after the new government came to power in the Republic. It is extremely important that both governments have shown by the prompt arrangements of this meeting how determined they both are to move forward on the peace process and also towards bringing the communities closer together on the island of Ireland. It is extremely important that the governments work together to achieve that objective. There are many difficult issues that remain to be settled both between us and between the parties involved. I think what this meeting shows is a resolution on the part of both governments to tackle these issues without any avoidable delay.

    There are of course many others whose views must be taken into account and we will on both our parts be listening and talking to all the other interests involved. The governments cannot act purely alone on this matter, they must bring public opinion with them, but I think this meeting so soon after the formation of the new government is an indication of our determination to do just that.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I share that view entirely.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (BELFAST TELEGRAPH):

    Has the Taoiseach confirmed or denied to you the assessment made by Albert Reynolds about the state of negotiations over the joint framework document that already agreement has been reached on the issues that he claimed were reached to that stage?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I am not going to comment on what Albert had to say last week. The Taoiseach and I certainly looked at the extent of agreement that exists in the joint framework document but rather more importantly, we were looking at the areas that remain to be agreed in the framework document and looked at how we might seek a way through those areas to find a final agreement; that is why we have agreed that we will have officials meet to carry on our discussion in early January and then Foreign Ministers thereafter.

    QUESTION:

    Are you in trouble?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No. Our negotiations on the framework document are not in trouble. I think you would have been very surprised and everyone else would have been very surprised if we had been able to sit down in five minutes and agree a framework document.

    The Joint Declaration took many months to agree. We have made a lot of progress on the framework document but there are still areas to be decided. I think both the Taoiseach and I are optimistic about the prospects of reaching agreement on these other matters but they do have to be discussed. The Taoiseach will wish to add some words but I think he would share that view.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would just like to add that I have had the opportunity of reviewing the framework document myself for the first time in the last few days and I would have to say that a great deal of progress has been made by the outgoing government and the British Government on that matter. There are a number of issues remaining to be resolved but I think that this meeting shows the determination on both our parts to resolve those issues quickly. We reviewed them in some depth at our meeting and while we didn’t resolve any of those issues I think we created a climate in which they can be resolved.

    QUESTION:

    Are you any clearer now on the way in which decommissioning of arms and explosives is going to take place and what are both your assessments of yesterday’s bomb in Enniskillen?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    My view is that the decommissioning of arms is a very important issue; it is important that substantial progress be made on that issue in the present phase of preliminary discussions but it is one of a number of issues which have to be addressed; it is important to build confidence in the peace process as well.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I agree with that. The mechanism of decommissioning is of course one of the matters that is going to need to be addressed in the preliminary talks.

    We have no confirmation yet of who was finally responsible for the Enniskillen incident.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, can I ask you what are the outstanding disagreements, if you like, in your approach with Mr. Major on the question of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    There isn’t an area of disagreement here. We both accept that this issue must be dealt with because as long as weapons remain in commission they remain a threat to the peace of everybody living on these islands. There is obviously an importance in dealing with this issue but it is important also to deal with other issues and to show that there is a peace dividend.

    QUESTION:

    What priority do you put on the question of the decommissioning of arms?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    We would put a high priority on it in conjunction with a number of other issues.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, both Gerry Adams and John Hume have said today that they would like to see all-inclusive talks much sooner than seems to be the case. How soon do you think there might be all-inclusive talks?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I would like to see all-inclusive talks as speedily as possible but we can’t get all-inclusive talks unless we can clear some of the difficulties that stand in the way of them in the preliminary talks. The speedier we can do that, the speedier we can have inclusive talks. I very much welcome that. The sooner we can sit down with the political representatives of all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland, the happier I will be but there is no point in proceeding to that if we haven’t cleared the ground properly and some of the main participants then decline to come to the table and that of course is what the preliminary talks are about so I share a view entirely that has been expressed by Mr. Hume and indeed by Mr. Adams if he has expressed that view, that the sooner we can get to inclusive talks the better but inclusive talks with a lot of empty chairs are not inclusive talks.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you both agree on the point that Sinn Fein cannot be involved in those all-inclusive talks, that they can’t be involved with Ministers, until the issue of the arms has been from your point of view satisfactorily resolved and the weapons are destroyed?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We are looking for substantial progress. We have made that clear from the start. You addressed the question as far as Sinn Fein is concerned and that is true but the same point applies also of course to the Loyalist paramilitaries. We do need to see some substantial progress made on this issue and I very much hope that we will get it.

    QUESTION:

    Does “substantial progress” still mean that the weapons have to be destroyed and that has to be verified?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We do need to make sure that substantial progress has been made and that means that weapons that otherwise would have been available for use against peaceable people in Northern Ireland are not able to be used and are not in commission.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    It is important to point out that the preliminary discussions with Sinn Fein are at a comparatively early point at this stage; there have been I believe as far as the British Government is concerned only two such meetings and obviously there is a very large agenda to be dealt with of which the decommissioning of arms is a very important element but not the only one.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Let me just add that we have a meeting with the Loyalist paramilitaries in the next few days and we have the next meeting with Sinn Fein agreed at their request in the middle of January.

    QUESTION:

    Is the change of the Irish Government going to slow down or speed up this process do you feel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All I can say is I am delighted at the speed with which the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste accepted my invitation to come to London. I think that shows that they share the same determination as their predecessor government to make speedy progress, effectively progress and lasting progress towards peace. I have no doubt about their wish to do that and I believe after our meeting today they have no doubt about our determination to achieve that either.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would like to say emphatically that it is the intention of the Tanaiste and I that our discussions will speed up the process.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Albert Reynolds – 24 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Albert Reynolds, held at Chequers on Monday 24th October 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I would like firstly to say how pleased I am to have had the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste with us today. We have had a very useful opportunity and some very useful discussions.

    As I said when I spoke in Belfast on Friday, I think we have now entered a new phase in the peace process, a phase that should lead to exploratory talks with Sinn Fein before the end of the year.

    We are going to have to work extremely hard to make up for all the opportunities that have been lost in the last twenty-five years but what we have now is a real opportunity to move forward and say that I look forward to taking and it is that opportunity in the future that the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, Paddy Mayhew and I have been discussing in our talks over the last few hours.

    The Joint Declaration that we signed last December opened the way for a ceasefire. We have now had nearly two months without any acts of terrorism by the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries have called off their violence and I thought to myself in very vivid fashion indeed last week in Belfast, in Dungannon, in Nurian, in Lisburn that there is a truly remarkable change in the atmosphere of normal life for people in Northern Ireland. There is a new buoyancy, there is a wave of support from both Unionists and Nationalists for the peace process and we are determined to build upon it.

    This morning, the Taoiseach and I have taken stock of the developments and have looked at the way ahead for the joint framework documents and the talks process that will follow. We are both clear that stability is vital for Northern Ireland’s future development and it must be based on an accommodation agreed by the political parties and that of course is the purpose of the joint framework document; it is to offer our joint understanding of what is most likely to secure widespread acceptance by the parties; it is not a blueprint to be imposed but they are ideas to be discussed by the parties and by all the people of Northern Ireland.

    We are making steady progress with the document and we have had another extremely useful discussions about it this morning. It addresses very important issues and for each side there are still some very important issues that remains to be resolved. We can’t yet set a final date for completion of the document by let me say that we are both determined to conclude this exercise successfully and at the earliest possible time. No-one is dragging their feet and we are both confident of being able to reach agreement.

    Let me say a word about security and weapons.

    Close cooperation – unprecedented cooperation to be frank – between the two governments has been a very big contribution to cross-border security in recent years. Both the Taoiseach and I want to deal effectively with the serious problem of weapons and explosives. Peace won’t finally be assured in Northern Ireland until the paramilitaries on both sides of the divide have put their weapons away; that will permit a democratic debate between law-abiding parties.

    We also, in addition to that, want to put an end to the racketeering, the drug-dealing and the other crimes which so frequently are a by-product of terrorism and so frequently used to fund the activities of terrorism so we have an entirely common interest in this area and I think the action taken by the Garda over the weekend illustrates that far more clearly than anything either the Taoiseach and I could say this afternoon. We have discussed this morning ways of coordinating our approach to deal with this particular problem. We spent some time on it and we have given a remit to our officials to develop this approach and report back to us as speedily as they can and their report will clearly be an important document for us to consider – I hope we will be able to consider it before very long.

    Let me just say finally a brief word about the economy:

    We need to move quickly to show the people in Northern Ireland, especially those in the worst-affected communities and particularly those who have been without jobs for a long time, the benefits for them of a peaceful way of life and that is the reason I launched two initiatives on Friday, firstly to hold an investment conference in Belfast in December and secondly to gather ideas right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland on the new projects which we and the European Union will back financially and I look forward to that conference moving ahead.

    I would like now to ask the Taoiseach to say a few words, but before he does let me say in conclusion that we will continue to keep in very close touch as we have done throughout the period immediately behind us, so will Paddy Mayhew and Dick Spring and so will the officials of the two governments. I myself do not believe we could have reached the present hopeful stage in Northern Ireland without absolutely unprecedented cooperation between our two governments; that cooperation is precisely what we have had over the last two years, it has become an ingrained habit and I think it will assist us as we move forward from now on.

    PRIME MINISTER REYNOLDS:

    Thank you, Prime Minister. Your statement indeed has outlined the matters that we discussed today at our meeting. First of all, we spent up to almost three hours in discussion, reviewing the peace process, where it is at in the light of two ceasefires now in place which indeed nobody believed was possible a few short months ago. After the Prime Minister’s statement in the north of Ireland at the weekend, it is quite clear that a very significant impetus has been given to the peace process and it is now moving along and today we reviewed where we had come from and how we are going to proceed in the future and of course we are going to proceed together, we always did up to now and we are going to continue that excellent relationship and keep in close touch as we move along step by step.

    It also gave us the opportunity to review progress on the framework document and allowed us the opportunity to give political direction to our officials as they restart their work on it. The Liaison Committee meets tomorrow to start work in the light of the directions given to them today.

    We have made further progress at this meeting today both at the meeting and over lunch and I have no doubt that we are all very well satisfied with how well the peace process is progressing and we aim to conclude successfully the framework document as soon as possible because we recognise that the momentum behind the peace process in Northern Ireland is so strong and so palpable on the ground that we are not going to delay or in any way hinder the development of that process which indeed will bring normality back to every family in Northern Ireland in both communities; they have suffered long enough, they have suffered for twenty-five years and the great sense of relief that has now permeated all the families in Northern Ireland has to indeed be built on by us and we are not going to be found wanting in that regard.

    As I say, it has been very sold progress today, I am absolutely satisfied that we have made good progress and that we will continue to make good progress from hereon in and that the two governments will continue that excellent cooperation between us and that great understanding between us. There is no question that this was a do-or-die effort here today, it was never envisaged to be that and it was a good solid working meeting albeit an informal meeting and indeed sometimes at those meetings more progress is made than at formal meetings.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Albert Reynolds – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held on Friday 15th July 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me just say a few words about our discussions this afternoon:

    When the Taoiseach and I first met when he first became Taoiseach in 1992, we agreed to have regular meetings and more formal biannual bilaterals. In practice, we have met very frequently during that period.

    When we met at Corfu a few weeks ago, we set in train a significant amount of work designed to complete a framework document; a lot of that work has been continuing. We took the opportunity of this unexpected summit today to meet and review that work. A substantial amount of progress has been made but there is self-evidently still some more work to do. We have commissioned some more work and we have decided that we will regroup again more formally in the early autumn – I can’t be precise as to the date at the moment – in order to carry that work forward so I would expect us to meet again in the early autumn and then again, of course, formally towards the end of the year.

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    I agree with my colleague on that. We set out a lot of work the last time we met and a lot of that work has been completed; we have achieved quite considerable progress. We have set another programme of work today, we would like to make progress again and as soon as we have the work completed we will have a summit in early autumn. We didn’t need a summit next week because we had the opportunity to complete what we would have done next week this week anyway so the unexpected summit called for Brussels today afforded us the opportunity to do our work that normally we would have had to meet next week to do.

    QUESTION:

    To what extent is the Irish constitutional claim to the North a sticking point?

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    We are in very sensitive, complex areas on both sides here. What we are trying to achieve is a new beginning not just a patch job, not just something to put a bit of sticking plaster on. We are trying to find a new beginning, a way to stop the violence on both sides and that is not achievable as quickly as some people might think but we have made very considerable progress and both of us are confident that we will achieve enough progress to hold a summit in the early autumn.

    QUESTION:

    Is that the stumbling block as far as you are concerned, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    There are a number of things that are still yet undetermined. If I look at where we are now and contemplate whether two years ago I would have imagined we would have reached the present circumstances, frankly I would not. The progress has been steady, perhaps sometimes unspectacular but it has been steady and it is continuing; that is still the case.

    There are some more things to be determined. They are very sensitive issues, very complex issues, very deep-rooted problems. We are examining them one by one and as we solve them we move on to the next one. I would rather take that gently and get it right than rush it and get it wrong. There is a very great deal at stake.

    QUESTION:

    But are you both prepared to give ground, you, Prime Minister, on the Government of Ireland Act for example and you, Taoiseach, on the constitutional claim?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think we will negotiate in private about things like that.

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    We said in our Downing Street Declaration of December 15 that we would approach a balanced constitutionalist agreement and that is what we are engaged in.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the summit in general that you are coming to? Can you tell us whether you believe that Jacques Santer is a much better choice than Jean-Luc Dehaene would have been?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes I do. We will have the summit very shortly and I very much hope we will be able to reach a conclusion. I do believe that Jacques Santer would be acceptable to the heads of most governments, all governments I hope; from our point of view, he has a number of very positive virtues and I look forward to the discussion in a few moments.

    QUESTION:

    Some people say that he is not very exciting. Do you think that matters?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think what matters is how competently and efficiently the new President is going to run the commission and take into account the interests of all the member nation states across the European Union.

    I have worked with Jacques Santer on the European Council for a number of years, I know his virtues, I know his capacity to carry matters forward and carry them forward in a balanced way. I think that is what is necessary.

    QUESTION:

    Since you met at Corfu, there has been a development in relation to the repatriation of prisoners. Are there any other such initiatives planned by you and sought by you?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    We are discussing a whole range of matters, some of them directly related to the talks we had this afternoon and other matters related to the security situation. I have said before and am happy to say again with the Taoiseach beside me that the degree of cooperation over security matters has improved beyond all measure over recent years and I think that is something that is welcome both sides of the border so there are matters like that under discussion, yes.

    QUESTION:

    Any new initiatives sought by you, Taoiseach?

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    Not specific in that manner although we do continue every time we have a meeting to look at ways and means of improving the atmosphere between the two communities and creating an environment from which we hope that violence will be taken out at some stage sooner rather than later as far as both of us are concerned but the specifics of such we always keep to ourselves.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Northern Ireland – 4 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement issued on 4th January 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Joint Declaration which Albert Reynolds and I agreed in Downing Street nearly three weeks ago sets out a clear challenge to the provisional movement, If they renounce violence – for good – and show they mean it, then Sinn Fein have the clear prospect of entering into the talks process with the other constitutional parties. But the onus is on them. They must choose whether they have the courage to end violence and enter into democratic politics. If they decide to continue their campaign of violence, they will do so in the knowledge that they are isolated and will face opposition from the two governments, from all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and from the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

    I very much hope that the provisional movement will see sense and renounce violence. Regrettably, they have not yet done so. They continue to seek “clarification” of the Joint Declaration – a tactic which should be seen for what it is: an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid facing up to the clear choice that confronts them. And, after a brief pause over Christmas, the IRA have continued their campaign of violence, as the murder of a young soldier in Crossmaglen last week reminded us only too clearly, together with the attempted murders and firebombs over the weekend.

    The provisionals face this choice at a time when there is increasing determination among the people of Northern Ireland to end 25 years of violence and see peace restored. Over recent months, both Patrick Mayhew and I have had many talks with political leaders from Northern Ireland, with churchmen, with community leaders, with businessmen and with many others. I have had an opportunity in three recent visits to Northern Ireland to meet a wide variety of people. All these contacts will continue. I have been impressed and heartened by the support we have had for our efforts to work for peace and for a political settlement. That encouraged me in the negotiations with the Irish government over the Joint Declaration. If we all continue to work together, we can keep the momentum going.

    The Joint Declaration sets out the framework for bringing about peace and reconciliation. In the name of both governments it restates in unequivocal terms the fundamental principles and guarantees that mean so much to all sides of the community in both parts of Ireland. In terms more comprehensive than ever before it sets out the philosophy which underpins the actions of both governments. It places great emphasis on the need to respect the different traditions of the communities in Northern Ireland.

    I understand the concerns of those in Northern Ireland who are cautious when faced with an initiative of this sort. But I strongly believe that when they read the Joint Declaration – as I hope everyone will do – they will find that the interests of all communities are fully recognised and protected. Suggestions that the document is a sell-out to one set of interests or another are nonsense. Not only does the Declaration repeat in the clearest possible terms the British Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee – that no change can come about without the consent of the greater number of people of Northern Ireland – but it also sets out the Irish Government’s acceptance of that principle, while no less importantly recognising nationalist ideals.

    The fact that the Declaration has the full support of the British and Irish Governments should make it clear to all that there is no way forward except through the democratic process. There is no place for terrorism, whether loyalist or republican. There is nothing that the men of violence, whatever cause they may claim to represent, can seriously believe they are able to achieve. They have achieved nothing worthwhile in 25 years of violence, and would achieve nothing worthwhile if it were to continue for another 25 years.

    But with a permanent end to violence, and a commitment to the democratic process, Sinn Fein can enter into exploratory dialogue within three months. Without a permanent end to violence, the terrorists and their supporters will be isolated, with the British and Irish Governments and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland united against them.

    Isolated, while the rest of us get on with our agenda for bringing about a political settlement via the talks process I am determined that, come what may, we will pursue those talks with renewed vigour. The Taoiseach and I have already reaffirmed our support for the objectives of the talks process, involving political dialogue between the two governments and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That is the three stranded approach which made such progress in 1992: we must now make it a priority to reach agreement in 1994.

    Strand 1 of the talks is concerned with setting up new forms of government within Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland needs a form of government that people can identify with, and where they can participate. A form of government that is fully accountable and commands support in all sections of the community. We are determined to restore properly based local democracy in Northern Ireland.

    Strand 2 of the talks concerns relations between Northern Ireland and the South. I know there has been fear and suspicion that these parts of the talks involve giving the South a direct role in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. They do not. It would be extraordinary if, as part of an overall political agreement, two countries sharing a border on an island did not look for ways to work together where that made sense to both. We each have so much to gain from co-operation across the border. That is what paragraph 9 of the Joint Declaration means when it talks of the two governments and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland creating through a process of political dialogue “institutions and structures which, while respecting the diversity of the people of Ireland, would enable them to work together in all areas of common interest”.

    I am under no illusion that it will prove easy to reach agreement on all these issues. But there is now a clear will on all sides to try to do so. And there is a positive benefit in the large task we have set ourselves. It is that once agreement is reached, it will be comprehensive, leaving no room for uncertainties or concerns about hidden agendas – uncertainties that can breed doubt, fear and instability. The prize at the end of the process is great: so great that we are all determined to succeed.

    The prize lies not just in a political solution. But also in the economic transformation that that in turn would bring. Northern Ireland is already well placed to benefit from the economic upturn that is taking hold throughout the United Kingdom. But the prospect of long term political stability would bring renewed confidence in Northern Ireland as a site for inward investment, as a destination for tourism. Confidence that would itself encourage existing firms to invest and to expand. Confidence that would help accelerate a reduction in unemployment. There are huge opportunities, and great international goodwill.

    So the British Government will continue to work towards achieving both peace and political reform in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is there. But at the same time, while terrorism continues, we will use every means we can to defeat it and bring those responsible to justice. The police and armed forces in Northern Ireland perform a difficult job with great skill, courage and sacrifice. They will continue to have our full support and backing in upholding the law and protecting the community.

    We will continue to work for peace. But not peace at any price: there will be no departure from the fundamental principles we hold to – in particular that change in Northern Ireland can only come about with the consent of the greater number of the people. The Joint Declaration makes it clear that it is above all for the people of Northern Ireland to shape their future. There is now a framework which reflects the concerns and aspirations of both sides of the community. It is a framework that can shape a better future for Northern Ireland in 1994. Peace is there for the taking.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Downing Street Declaration – 15 December 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement, made on 15th December 1993, on the Downing Street Declaration.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister.

    As the House will be aware, the Taoiseach and I agreed a joint declaration this morning. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I know that the whole House will wish to hear what lay behind this declaration and what it may mean for the future.

    For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilised community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British Governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems. We must care as much about violence in Northern Ireland as about violence in any other part of the Union.

    When the Taoiseach and I met at Downing street two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We were both well aware of the pitfalls and dangers which have wrecked so many previous attempts, but we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it a personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement.

    The declaration that we have agreed today shows the commitment of the two Governments for peace and democracy and against violence. Its objective is to set a framework for peace, a framework that reflects our responsibilities to both communities in a way that is fully compatible with the undertakings that we have both given and with the objectives of the talks process.

    Copies of the joint declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I urge all hon. Members to read it carefully. It deserves careful study. It has required detailed and painstaking negotiations between the two Governments. It addresses the concerns of both sides of the Community and it is totally consistent with the principles that this Government have repeatedly confirmed to the House. It may help the House if I set out the main elements of the declaration. I will, where possible, quote directly from the text of the declaration so that there can be no misunderstanding about what it says.

    First, paragraph 2 expressly reaffirms the British Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s statutory constitutional guarantee. This guarantees that, as long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, the Government will uphold their right to do so. That pledge is rock solid. That is set out most clearly also in paragraph 4, which reaffirms that the British Government will

    “uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland.”

    Later in that paragraph, the British Government agree

    “that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self- determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.”

    This is a crucial sentence, and one about which there has been much misleading speculation. So let me repeat that it says that a move to a united Ireland can take place only

    “by agreement between the two parts respectively”

    and

    “on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South”.

    This fully protects the position of the majority in Northern Ireland, and means that change could come about only with their consent.

    In line with previous undertakings, the British Government also reaffirm that if a future majority in Northern Ireland desired a united Ireland, we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring that about.

    For his part, the Taoiseach accepts in paragraph 5 that “it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”

    Later in the same paragraph, he accepts that

    “the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland”.

    Those are important commitments by the Taoiseach which I know will be widely welcomed by the House. The House will also welcome, in paragraph 7, the Taoiseach’s confirmation that, in the event of an overall settlement of the talks process,

    “the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.”

    The joint declaration fully backs the three-strand talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two Governments. It says that it is the two Governments’ aim

    “to foster agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island, and between these islands.” I believe that the passages that I have quoted, and the other language in the joint declaration, set out a clear framework under which differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful political means. But that can come about only if the men of violence end the killing and commit themselves to the democratic process. The joint declaration sets out the way in which this can be brought about.

    Paragraph 10 says that both Governments

    “reiterate that the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.”

    Let me make it plain on behalf of the British Government what that undertaking means. If there is a permanent end to violence, and if Sinn Fein commits itself to the democratic process, then we will be ready to enter into preliminary exploratory dialogue with it within three months. But, first, it must end violence for good.

    I understand the fears and concerns of Unionists about the prospects of the British Government’s entering into talks with Sinn Fein. This period has been a worrying and uncertain time for them. Although they have the primary interest in seeing an end to violence, they are rightly concerned lest this be achieved by selling out the fundamental constitutional principles which the Government have always upheld. If they fear that, then they should be reassured by this declaration. It reaffirms the constitutional guarantee in the clearest possible terms. The Taoiseach fully accepts the principle that any constitutional change could come about only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland.

    In summary, let me make it clear what is in the declaration and what is not. What is in the declaration is a renewed commitment by the British Government to Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee ; an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland ; a willingness on the Taoiseach’s part to make changes in the Irish constitution if an overall settlement can be reached ; and a confirmation that if Sinn Fein renounces violence, it will be able to participate in future democratic discussions. What is not in the declaration is any suggestion that the British Government should join the ranks of persuaders of the “value” or “legitimacy” of a united Ireland ; that is not there. Nor is there any suggestion that the future status of Northern Ireland should be decided by a single act of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole ; that is not there either. Nor is there any timetable for constitutional change, or any arrangement for joint authority over Northern Ireland. In sum, the declaration provides that it is, as it must be, for the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future.

    All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will wish to study the document very carefully. I should like today to extend an offer to meet each of the parties regularly in the future, so that I can hear at first hand their concerns and ambitions, and can set out to them the British Government’s position. If we can work together to quell ancient fears and suspicions, we can help to build a better future for Northern Ireland.

    I have made it clear that if it renounces violence, the way is open to Sinn Fein to join in legitimate constitutional dialogue. That is a political route which it now has no excuse not to follow. That is the opportunity offered by this joint declaration–and it has been obtained without compromising any of the constitutional principles that this Government have consistently espoused. The onus is now on Sinn Fein to take advantage of that opportunity : I urge it to do so.

    Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) : On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the joint declaration with enthusiasm. We fervently hope that it will be an important first step in a peace process that will lead to a new political settlement. It was necessary for the two Governments to take the lead, but it is vital that the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now take part in new discussions which the British Government should promote.

    There was never any excuse for violence and terror on the part of any paramilitary organisation, but there is now an opportunity for both the permanent cessation of violence and the involvement of Sinn Fein in constitutional dialogue–provided that it is clear that the path of violence has been abandoned. We hope that the new opportunities that the declaration creates are seized by both traditions in Northern Ireland.

    May I ask the Prime Minister two questions about the detail of the declaration? First, in paragraph 9, both Governments commit themselves to seeking to create institutions and structures which would enable the people of Ireland to work together in all areas of common interest. What kind of institution, and what areas of policy, have the Governments in mind?

    Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as the “crucial sentence” in paragraph 4, about consent being “freely and concurrently given, North and South”.

    Does that passage mean that a constitutional settlement arising from the talks process could be put to the people of Northern Ireland and those of the Republic in separate referendums on the same day? Finally, may I endorse the appeal for an end to violence that the Prime Minister made in his concluding sentence? That must be the overwhelming desire of all the people of the British Isles–not least those in Northern Ireland–who have suffered the appalling violence of the past 25 years.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman both for his support for the joint declaration and for the continuation of talks which necessarily must proceed beside it. I believe that he is right that it is an opportunity to move from a violent path. It is an opportunity which no one can compel the men of violence to take. It is an opportunity which lies there and it is in their hands now to decide whether to take that opportunity and move towards a legitimate political path in future. I repeat : I hope that they will take that opportunity.

    As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s two specific questions, the reference in paragraph 9 refers specifically to the three-stranded talks that are continuing at the present time, and there would be a large number of areas of common interest that are being identified in these talks that would be the subject of the structures referred to. So far as “freely and concurrently given” is concerned in terms of referendums, it certainly need not necessarily mean referendums on the same day. What it does mean is that that could be the situation. It is a matter for agreement in the talks and beyond, but they certainly need not necessarily be on the same day. It does imply that consent would need to be given separately north and south.

    Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Has the Prime Minister noticed that this morning’s statement is already being termed the Downing street declaration? Those of us who remember the earlier Downing street declaration in the time of the Government of Lord Wilson will remember that it was very specific in saying that the affairs of Northern Ireland were an internal matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. May I, in a constructive fashion, ask the Prime Minister to assure us that the drift from that position over the past 20 years will be halted under his premiership?

    Whatever the eventual conclusions that one may draw from this rather tortuously worded statement with its many contradictions–I am referring to the statement, not the one just made by the Prime Minister–it appears to give some finality to the secret discussions that have destabilised the Province over recent months and which the Prime Minister has recognised just now. Does the Prime Minister share my expectation that we can now proceed to govern Northern Ireland in accordance with the wishes of 85 per cent. of the population–Protestant and Roman Catholic–who were greatly reassured by his remark to the House that

    “The future constitutional position of the people of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine and for no one else to determine.”–[ Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 29.]

    Finally, can the Prime Minister confirm that the joint declaration does not assert the value or legitimacy of achieving a united Ireland without majority consent; commit the people of Northern Ireland to joining a united Ireland against their democratic wishes, establish any form of joint authority over Northern Ireland, even by phasing; establish any joint mechanisms such as a permanent convention; or give Sinn Fein an immediate place at the talks table? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that the statement does not sideline the very valuable round of meetings between the parties convened by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland–the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)–which are now drawing towards a successful conclusion and which have been supported just now by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point at the end, I can confirm to him that the joint declaration does not assert the value of achieving a united Ireland; does not assert the legitimacy of a united Ireland in the absence of majority consent; does not either, for I think that it was implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, commit the British Government to joining the ranks of the persuaders for a united Ireland. That is not the job of any British Government. It does not set any timetable for a united Ireland. It does not commit the people of Northern Ireland to join a united Ireland against their wishes, and it does not establish any arrangements for joint authority. I can confirm each of those points to the right hon. Gentleman.

    As to the talks process undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we anticipate and expect that they will continue and intensify. They are, I believe, becoming extremely valuable. We wish to proceed with them with all speed so that we can make further progress in the talks, which will run alongside the declaration that I have just set out to the House. As far as the consent principle is concerned, I reiterate again, because I wish no one to be in any doubt about this, that the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland lies now, and will continue to lie, within the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. For so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain within the Union, they will have the total and complete support of this Government in doing so.

    Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the fact that the great difficulty and the field of controversy between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic–Northern Ireland being a member of the United Kingdom, although the document never once mentions the United Kingdom; that phrase has been entirely jettisoned from the document – involves articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution? Surely that is the very nub of the controversy. Why does this paper not even mention that?

    A member of the Government said to me outside, “Oh, yes, but look at page 5.” I have read the document carefully. In fact, I was able to receive from Dublin 24 hours before this document was available to other people all the information that I put in my letter– [Interruption.] It is very important that the Prime Minister should answer this question. He confirms that, in the event of an overall settlement, according to the Taoiseach, “the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.”

    But it is not the principle of consent in Northern Ireland that has anything to do with articles 2 and 3; it is the principle of the territorial claim. However, that most important matter has not even been referred to.

    Will the Prime Minister tell us what the statement on page 2 really does to the present position? Paragraph 4 states that the British Government agree

    “that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self- determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.”

    How is that different? Is it not different from the present situation when the entity of self-determination in Northern Ireland is the people of Northern Ireland? Why must the people of Northern Ireland now be linked with the Irish Republic on a question of their own right to remain within this United Kingdom?

    Finally, may I say to the Prime Minister, that, as a public representative, I find it very offensive to be told that, in three months’ time, if the IRA ceases its violence without any conditions for handing over its weapons or its bomb-making material or any of its military prowess, the IRA will be invited, as constitutional politicians, to sit down at the table. That goes to the very gut of the resentment of the people of Northern Ireland who have been slaughtered, butchered and murdered– [Interruption.] I do not mind what the hon. Gentleman says. His constituents have not been murdered or butchered. Perhaps he would like to sit down with the godfathers of the IRA and others who have done such things. What I have described goes to the gut of the people of Northern Ireland. They look on this as a sell-out act of treachery.

    The Prime Minister : Let me touch on the last part first. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that some of his constituents have been murdered by terrorist activities over the past 25 years. I acknowledge that and I understand the misery that that must have caused to his constituents, their families and to the hon. Gentleman himself.

    I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the agreement and the document is to make sure that, 25 years from now, his successor does not sit there saying that to the Prime Minister of the day. I wish to take action to make sure that there is no more bloodshed of that sort and no more coffins carried away week after week because politicians do not have the courage to sit down, address the problem and find a way through. I am prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that I should not, he does not understand the responsibilities of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. On the hon. Gentleman’s three questions, the declaration does not specifically refer to the United Kingdom; it specifically refers to the Union, which I think that the hon. Gentleman himself cares about. If he reads the document carefully, which, alas, he had not done when he made his remarks this morning and issued his letter, he will see that reference to the Union. As for articles 2 and 3, the quotation answers the hon. Gentleman’s own question. That is clearly intended to refer to articles 2 and 3 in due course, and does so refer. On the hon. Gentleman’s third point on paragraph 4 about freely expressed consent, the specific point of paragraph 4 is to mention the freely expressed consent north and south respectively. It is saying to the hon. Gentleman that he, his constituents and all the other people in Northern Ireland have themselves, by their own actions, in their hands the future constitutional position of Ulster.

    Mr. John Hume (Foyle) : May I express to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Reynolds my deep appreciation for the enormous amount of energy that they have put into trying to grasp the hope of peace–a hope which is shared by the masses of people on both islands? Having read the joint declaration, I think that it is one of the most comprehensive declarations that has been made about British-Irish relations in the past 70 years. My appeal to all sections of our people is to read the entire statement in full and to have no knee-jerk reactions but to study it carefully and in full before responding.

    As the House will be aware, it has been the consistent position of my party that the British-Irish quarrel of old, the quarrel of sovereignty, has changed fundamentally in the evolution of the new interdependent and post- nationalist Europe of which we are members, but the legacy of that past is the deeply divided people. I welcome the fact that the declaration identifies the problem as the deeply divided people of Ireland. I also welcome the fact that it recognises that that division can be healed only by agreement, and by an agreement that earns the allegiance and agreement of all our traditions and respects their diversity. I welcome also the fact that the Government have committed themselves to promoting such agreement and to encouraging such agreement, and whatever form that agreement takes, the Government will endorse.

    Does the Prime Minister agree that the joint declaration is a challenge to all parties to come to the table in a totally peaceful atmosphere to begin the very difficult process–it will be a difficult process–of reaching agreement? If it takes place in a peaceful atmosphere, we will have much more chance of reaching such an agreement. My appeal to everyone who comes to that table is to come armed only with the strength of their convictions and not with any form of coercion or physical force.

    Let us remember at this time that it is people who have rights, not territory, and that humanity transcends nationality. May the House share with me at this moment the hope of all our people that today will be the first major step on a road that will remove for ever the gun and the bomb from our small island of people.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive support. He is right; the declaration is a challenge to all parties and to all people concerned with finding a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I have to say to all parties that I think that we have no moral alternative but to take up that challenge and see whether we can find a satisfactory outcome. The hon. Gentleman has shown his personal commitment to a settlement in Northern Ireland for many years and, on that basis, his support today is doubly welcome.

    Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater) : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the genuine and serious work that he has done in producing the declaration for the House? Is not it evident that no such declaration could give everybody everything that they wanted? Is not it evident also that there is nothing in the declaration that genuinely and seriously threatens anybody’s vital interests in the matter?

    Is not there a heavy responsibility on all hon. Members, including the elected Members in Northern Ireland, not to react in a way which could destroy the best opportunity for peace that we have seen since the trouble began? Is not the message from the House–we hope that it will be repeated later from the Dail Eireann–to those who have been responsible for violence that, because there is now a joint offer from both Governments of access to the democratic process, violence should cease immediately?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He speaks, of course, with the experience of having been a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is right that this is a balanced document which now offers opportunities that were not there before. I share my right hon. Friend’s hope that those opportunities will be taken up.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : Will the Prime Minister note that he has our sincere and heartfelt good will in all his efforts and in the personal commitment which he is devoting to the task? Does he note also that we welcome the concurrent referendum possibility and the emphasis on human rights in the Taoiseach’s own statement? Is not the real question for the terrorists? Why should anybody else die and why should any more families be torn apart when it is possible to seek change without obstacle by a peaceful process, and when there are guarantees, which are underwritten by both Governments, that those changes cannot be enforced against the will of the majority in the north of Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is now no justification whatever for terrorism. There is now a clear and identifiable alternative for those people who seriously wish to engage in discussions in Northern Ireland. If terrorism were to continue after the statement and after the declaration, with the support that that has been given, it will be clearly understood by everyone that those people who engage in terrorism do not in any way genuinely seek a settlement, but simply wish to inflict murder and terror continuously.

    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) : May I ask my right hon. Friend to be encouraged by the fact that the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body met in London today, and British and Irish Members of Parliament alike asked me on their behalf to welcome the joint declaration and to give it their support?

    May I further ask my right hon. Friend to repeat that the declaration is a framework for peace that represents in many ways an opportunity for a new beginning? Will my right hon. Friend, together with the Irish Taoiseach, continue with all of his strength in his historic work, the end of which can mean only the peace which we all want?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The declaration certainly is a framework for peace. It is an opportunity, but whether that opportunity is taken does not lie in my hands or in the hands of the Irish Prime Minister. It lies in the hands of the people who have bombed and killed for so long. It is they who must come under pressure to make sure that the violence ends.

    Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : May I, as someone whose constituency suffered from the bombers, ask the Prime Minister to accept that now is the time to give peace a chance? Will he also accept that if anybody involved fails to take that chance, they will never be forgiven?

    It is time for all paramilitaries to lay down their arms. If they do, will not that be a fitting memorial, not only to the two small boys who lost their lives in Warrington, but to all who have lost their lives needlessly because of the actions of the people of violence? Let us hope that the words that have been spoken today will be heeded and that peace comes at last. Is not that what is needed if we are to avoid debates about violence in the future?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot improve on what the hon. Gentleman said; I simply endorse it.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Does my right hon. Friend ardently wish that people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom? Otherwise, is there not a danger that people will say that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is careless with regard to the integrity of the United Kingdom? In that case, would it be inconceivable that anybody could have said that without the events of the past 25 years?

    The Prime Minister : If my hon. Friend looks at the joint declaration and at the words I set out so clearly at the last general election, he need have no doubt about my views on the Union; they are well known and on the record. I have gone to great trouble to ensure that the constitutional guarantee is firmly enshrined in the joint declaration, so that there can be no doubt that those people who care about support of the Government, to remain within the Union for so long as that is their wish.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Prime Minister aware that so strong is the desire for peace that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have long favoured talks among all the parties concerned? Will he confirm that a round table conference on that basis offers a better hope of a durable peace than simply talks between two Prime Ministers, neither of whom has been responsible for the violence? Would I be right in assuming that the significance of what he said today about the future of the island of Ireland being in the hands of the Irish people is that the British Government are no longer laying claim to an interest in the maintenance of the Union if the people of the north are ready to seek alternative arrangements? Is not that an important statement which ought to be underlined, clarified and emphasised in order to end the violence?

    The Prime Minister : On the first point, talks between the two Governments have a place and the joint declaration is the outcome of those discussions. It lies alongside the main talks process with all the constitutional parties, who must play their part in determining what happens, as they are most directly concerned. Self-evidently, that is the best way to proceed. As far as the Union is concerned, I reiterate the points I made a moment ago; my views about the Union are well known. I said some time ago at the election that it would not be appropriate for any Government–I was talking about Scotland–to hold Scotland within the United Kingdom if a majority of its people wanted independence. The same must apply to the people of Northern Ireland. That does not exclude the fact that I have my own personal views; it illustrates the fact that, ultimately, it must be for the people themselves to determine.

    Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : While warmly welcoming the joint declaration as a potential positive way forward, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that, during the weeks it was prepared, violence continued in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that there is no let-up in the hunt for those that perpetrated terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend takes a particular interest in Northern Ireland as chairman of the committee particularly concerned with Northern Ireland. I give him the categorical assurance that there will be no let-up in the security action against terrorists. The co-operation with the Gardai and the security forces in the north is today at a more comprehensive level that we have ever known.

    Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : As I almost lost my life at the hands of IRA terrorism, I fully understand the message inherent in today’s declaration and to whom it is directed. Obviously there is much emphasis on Irish nationalist aspirations. However, the Prime Minister will know that 95 per cent. of people in my constituency are more interested in British aspirations. Although he has given some assurances today and specifically referred to paragraph 2 of the joint declaration which states that both Prime Ministers reaffirm “Northern Ireland’s statutory constitutional guarantee”, the trouble is that both Prime Ministers interpret differently what Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee really is. Therefore, with the purpose of giving confidence to the British people of my constituency, will the Prime Minister assure us, first, that the declaration in no way weakens Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom and, secondly, that it in no way gives Dublin any further role in the internal affairs or administration of Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : First, the whole House knows that the right hon. Gentleman was on one occasion very badly wounded by the IRA, and that he showed bravery then and subsequently. I am grateful for what he said. I give him both the assurances that he seeks. The declaration in no way weakens the constitutional guarantee that was first set out in the Northern Ireland Constitutional Act 1973. There is no weakening of that constitutional guarantee and nothing agreed today in the joint declaration gives the Government of the Republic of Ireland any additional say in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

    Sir James Kilfedder (North Down) : Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no talks with Sinn Fein until the terrorists, the IRA, hand over not only all the guns, ammunition and explosives that they have in Northern Ireland, but the material that they have in the Irish Republic?

    The Prime Minister : It may be rather difficult in practice to find out precisely where it is and who has it ; that is the practical difficulty that we face. We have said, beyond any doubt, that there must be the clearest possible public renunciation of violence and then a decontamination period– [Hon. Members :– “Both sides.”]–so that it is clear that that renunciation of violence will be held and there will be no violence. Then one can determine whether Sinn Fein can enter into discussions.

    Hon. Members : Both sides.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : The Prime Minister will be aware that, in Dail Eireann today, there will be a similar reaction to the joint declaration. I welcome that, as I welcome the reception that it has received in the House. Does the Prime Minister accept that the intrinsic value will be recognised only if the same acceptance is gained where it counts–in places like my constituency in west Belfast, on the Shankill road and in the districts which have been beset by the violence of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitary groupings?

    The Prime Minister said in his statement that the British Government’s role will be to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement among all the people who inhabit the island. Does he include in that the further persuasion of those in the IRA who are carrying out violence? He has recognised that there are channels for achieving that. A logical conclusion of that part of his statement must be to pursue that type of persuasion with those people, to try to ensure an end to violence.

    I am consistently impressed by the reassurances that the Prime Minister gives to Unionists in the House. Those of us of a nationalist persuasion believe in pursuing our objectives by peaceful democratic means. When the Prime Minister speaks about the north of Ireland, he should recognise that 44 per cent. of the population follow that view and are entitled to some prime ministerial persuasion and reassurance at some time.

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that there has been any occasion when I have suggested that everyone who held nationalist aspirations was inclined to pursue them in a violent manner. That is certainly not my view. The IRA has pursued its activities in a wholly unsatisfactory and brutal manner. That patently does not apply to every nationalist and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have thought that any hon. Member could conceivably think that it did. As for persuasion, it is not in my mind to offer concessions to people. What we have to say to all parties is now said clearly and in the open. They know what lies there; they know what opportunity awaits if they are prepared permanently to renounce violence. That is what lies there and there is nothing further to be offered.

    Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire) : Now that the brave efforts of both Prime Ministers and of the Ministers and officials, who worked so hard, have brought the declaration to a successful conclusion, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest cause for hope and satisfaction is that although there has never been the slightest excuse for violence, killing and bombing, if that course is pursued by the terrorists it will only show that they are not the slightest bit interested in any part of the democratic process? Has my right hon. Friend further agreed with the Taoiseach that if violence continues, both Governments, working together, will make concerted efforts to do whatever must be done to defeat the terrorists?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend speaks with special knowledge of Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to say that there is no conceivable excuse for a continuation of violence. If it were to continue, I do not have a shred of doubt that we would continue to receive good and enhanced co-operation from the Government of the Republic of Ireland in tracking down those engaged in terrorism.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Do not we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) whose dedicated work for peace should be appreciated by all? Many attacked him, and I hope that they will realise now what he set out to achieve. Would it be useful to let friendly western democracies know what has been agreed between Ireland and the United Kingdom not least the United States, where there seems to be some misunderstanding of the long and justified campaign waged by this country against terrorism? Should not the people of western Europe know and understand that the joint declaration has the overwhelming support of the people of Ireland and Britain and that continuing terrorism from either side has no support from the people whom the terrorists claim to represent?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to add the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle. I have paid tribute to him in the past for the work that he pursued for so many years, and I am glad to reiterate it today.

    I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in respect of the United States and Europe. I believe that there will be overwhelming support for the proposals set out in the joint declaration. We must hope that that transmits itself to those people who have the power to stop the killing, and that they choose to do so.

    Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that whether or not this welcome declaration leads to an end to violence, it finally strips away the remotest pretext for violence and for international sympathy or support for violence? It also broadens the political base for the repression of violence from whatever quarter, should it continue.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend touched on a most important point when he said that the declaration strips away any pretext for tangible support. That is true within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and in respect of the tangible support that has come from other sources from time to time.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : Although there is widespread hope that today’s declaration will form the basis of a peaceful settlement, does the Prime Minister agree that much remains to be done to ensure a lasting peaceful settlement? As to talks with various parties, will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance that no party will be able to use a boycott or veto to scupper the peace process and that the Prime Minister will not be deflected by his Government’s desire to secure the support of Unionist votes in the House?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that the participants in the talks would put up with a veto, which is the most practical point arising from the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, if the talks procedure itself is to produce a lasting outcome, it will need to carry the consent of people in Northern Ireland. I shall seek, therefore, to encourage the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland at which the hon. Gentleman directed his remarks to play a full part in the constitutional discussions. They have done so thus far; they have done so very constructively. A great deal of progress has been made and I believe that they will wish to continue to make progress, as was indicated by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) a few moments ago.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : As a committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s total commitment to peace. All Members of the House join him in hoping that the declaration will produce peace. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the strength of the United Kingdom is composed of the component parts of the United Kingdom–England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales–and that any breach of the Union will weaken the whole? Will my right hon. Friend, as I did some years ago, go to Northern Ireland and campaign for the Union and support those who are in favour of the Union, should the necessity arise?

    The Prime Minister : My views about the Union, as I indicated a moment or so ago, are well known and I do not believe that they can be seriously challenged by anyone who considers the record at the general election, before the general election, or subsequent to the general election, or considers the detail of the joint declaration. I also hold to the belief, however, that in the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine the position. I believe that that is the right way to proceed and I think that in due course that is the way in which we must proceed.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : In welcoming the statement and wishing its ideals and its aspirations fair wind, although I recognise the many difficult days which still lie ahead, may I re-emphasise, on behalf of the constitutional nationalist parties in the House, the importance that we attach to achieving our aims through the ballot box, through reasoned arguments and through the democratically expressed views of the people of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, be that through a referendum or through a general election?

    I also congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle on the bravery that he has shown for many months, along with other people whose names perhaps are not so well known in this context, and I hope that the efforts that have been made will bring about a lasting settlement. Finally, I remind the Prime Minister that in Europe there is a great opportunity for the diversity of nations to be recognised as equal partners.

    The Prime Minister : On her first two points, the hon. Lady will carry almost everyone with her, and I believe that she deserves to. The third point was rather more elliptical, but I think that, in principle, I can agree with the hon. Lady.

    Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those who have helped in the making of this historic agreement. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that no commitment–explicit or implicit–has been made for any form of amnesty for those people who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland, and that the judicial process will pursue, with utmost diligence, those who have continued with their crimes of violence in recent weeks?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that absolute commitment.

    Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) : May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is appropriate at this time that we remember two brave and dedicated men from my constituency who made the supreme sacrifice as members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the weekend? Drew Beecom and Ernie Smith were fine men. Those are the sort of people who must never be betrayed. I have experienced at first hand for more than 20 years the treachery of the IRA. Is there implicit in paragraph 10, which deals with a possible permanent end to violence and the way in which the men of violence can in due course enter the democratic process, provision by both Governments for a process of verification? Will he assure us that that process includes the surrender of arms and explosives and that it requires those who have been involved in violence to declare, by drafting a new manifesto and seeking approval at the ballot box, that they totally eschew violence before they can fully enter the democratic process?

    The Prime Minister : They will certainly be required to give evidence of sincerity in a renunciation of violence. That is the purpose of having a gap between the renunciation and the entry into exploratory preliminary talks, so that we can examine the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. The dreadful murders of the two brave men that he mentioned at Fivemiletown are the latest in a long catalogue of the wholly unnecessary and wasteful actions that have destroyed so many people’s lives in Northern Ireland. If the options that are opened up as a result of this declaration are to be taken up, there is a possibility that perhaps no more brave men need join them.

    Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread welcome for the third paragraph of the declaration, which emphasises the key role of the European Community? Does he agree that the development of the single market will break down economic barriers and build up trust between the two communities? Does he also agree that it is important to have greater sporting links, as they also break down barriers and could build up the links between the two traditions? Does he agree that it would be an excellent idea if there were an all-Ireland soccer team?

    The Prime Minister : An all-Ireland soccer team would be a great loss to many people who have watched Northern Ireland play the Republic on many occasions. Those of us who like watching the five nations rugby championship would also rather miss that clash. Beyond that, however, my hon. Friend is right about the impact of the single market.

    Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : None of us have doubted the Prime Minister’s commitment to the Union, but perhaps in drafting the declaration it might have been wiser to put in Great Britain, because then we would have kept Scotland within the Union.

    Mrs. Ewing : No, thank you.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : May I explore a little further whether, having offered the carrot, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic has made any commitment to join in applying the stick if it is necessary and the offer of peace is not accepted? As I understand it, the two Governments and the two nations are not at war. May I also clarify a misunderstanding that may have gone unnoticed in this place today? Sinn Fein has a democratic place and has been elected, but its representatives did not take their places in this House and it has not been prepared to act as a proper democratic party.

    I shall give three simple illustrations. Having made a declaration that they would not support violence, as they would not then be eligible to be councillors, one of Sinn Fein’s elected councillors has gone to the United States to defend the acts of the IRA. The other evening in my constituency, a 1,000 lb bomb was placed by the IRA in a nationalist and predominantly Roman Catholic area. It could have devastated new houses and a Roman Catholic controlled school and one woman died. Representative McKnight of Sinn Fein refused to condemn the IRA. Is it not near time that we stopped that mollycoddling and laid down the terms under which Sinn Fein can be represented as a proper democratic party?

    The Prime Minister : On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, if the offer that implicitly lies there is not taken up, I have no doubt that the two Governments will continue to work together in intensified mode on security matters against men of violence, whether from the IRA, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or the Ulster Volunteer Force. The relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is well understood, as is the pseudo-constitutional position of the president of Sinn Fein. Therein lies the link–the necessity for a complete renunciation of violence before there can be any intention of accepting the representatives of Sinn Fein in any constitutional talks.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. May I remind hon. Members that we are not in the middle of a debate but asking questions on a statement. I am sure that if I call a few more hon. Members, they will co-operate with me and ask brisk questions, and perhaps we could have a brisk exchange.

    Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : Can the Prime Minister tell us what loyal Ulster has done wrong to have this further betrayal visited on it? When he talks to the House about the consent of Northern Ireland being required, will he remember, because the people of Northern Ireland have not forgotten, that their consent was neither asked for nor given for the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Their consent was neither asked for nor given for this declaration. It seems that their consent will be required only for the final act of separation.

    Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his stomach is no longer turning at the prospect of sitting down with the IRA? Can he tell us why he has taken away the unfettered right of the people of Northern Ireland to have an act of self-determination and why he has included it in the self- determination of the island as a whole? Why is it that Prime Ministers from this House who protest the most that they are Unionists are always the ones who do the greatest harm to the Union?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that that was intended to be a wholly destructive intervention. There is no question, and the hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question, of betrayal in any sense. I would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the joint declaration and then read it again and again until he understands it, because he cannot justify what he has just said.

    The constitutional guarantee and the consent principle are writ large in the statement. In the letter which the hon. Gentleman published this morning, with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Gentleman claimed that I had

    “given the Prime Minister of a foreign and alien power joint jurisdiction over part of Her Majesty’s dominions”.

    That is what the hon. Gentleman wrote this morning. He was utterly and totally wrong about that. I have done no such thing, as the joint declaration makes unambiguously clear. The declaration states that self-determination must be

    “exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”.

    The hon. Gentleman should read the declaration before he comments on it, and not mislead people about it. I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will not always put himself between actions that will bring peace and that peace.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loyalist paramilitaries will also be expected to lay down their arms? Can he tell us what he means about the concurrent referendums? For instance, we now know from questions that he has answered that the referendums may not be on the same day. If the decision of the referendum in the south of the country is in favour, and the decision of the referendum in the north is against, do they add them up? [Interruption.] Can the Prime Minister explain what will happen in those circumstances? Does it mean that there will be no further progress? I should like to know the answer.

    The Prime Minister : I sometimes despair at the hon. Gentleman. Everyone is expected to lay down their arms–that is perfectly clear. As I said, I despair at the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. I have made it clear almost times beyond number at this Dispatch Box over recent weeks and now that there must be a majority in Northern Ireland. If there is no majority in Northern Ireland, the constitutional guarantee stands.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : In view of paragraph 4 of the declaration that the British Government “have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland”, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government still have a “strategic or economic interest” in Wolverhampton? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : Well– [Interruption.] Don’t tempt me– [Laughter.]

    Let me explain to my hon. Friend : we shall not impose our views on the majority in Northern Ireland, but that, of course, does not and cannot mean that we are indifferent to their concerns and their future. We support the Union, and we protect its people. We support their rights with our cast- iron constitutional guarantee. We support their economy, and we support it generously. We deploy 18,000 of our troops in Northern Ireland, because of our concern about the situation there, and we want to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland about whom we are concerned, from both communities, can have a safer and more prosperous future in which democracy can thrive. None of that is selfish; all of it is our responsibility.

    Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed from the Irish constitution–

    Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : Removed?

    Mr. Beggs : Removed. Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed will my constituents recognise that, for the first time, an opportunity has arisen to seek to develop new relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Will he bear with me when I describe the great disappointments that my constituents and people elsewhere in Northern Ireland have had over little things, such as the £7 million defrauded by a citizen of the Irish Republic in Dublin out of the people who invested in International Investments Ltd? Despite the representations that have been made from Northern Ireland on that little issue, we have had no satisfaction. Therefore, we have great doubts whether we shall get satisfaction on the greater issues.

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I freely confess that I am not familiar with the particular case that he mentioned, but I am sure that if he brings it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend will examine the matter to see whether anything can be done.

    Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that no rational Unionist could fail to give the declaration a cautious welcome, but does he also accept that it is sensible that the declaration has not been made in an atmosphere of euphoria, as though it would bring “peace in our time”? However, it is an opportunity. I take sides with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in asking whether my right hon. Friend also agrees that those who may have some persuasive influence, although no direct influence, over the loyalist paramilitaries should persuade them to lay down their arms–before the IRA men lay down theirs, in my view.

    The Prime Minister : We all wish to see the men of violence lay down their arms, whether they claim to represent the loyalist or the nationalist cause. In my judgment, both groups of people involved in violence betray the causes for which they claim to speak. My hon. Friend is right about the status of the document. It is an opportunity for peace, but it cannot be guaranteed by the two Governments; I do not guarantee it. It lies there to be taken up if the people who can deliver peace will take it up. It is not a certainty, but it is an opportunity.

    Mr. Trimble : The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) referred to euphoria. Does the Prime Minister recall the euphoria years ago when the House foolishly endorsed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has blighted the politics of Ulster ever since? If we are suspending judgment on the statement today, it is in the hope that it will lead to a way out of the cul-de-sac to which the people of Ulster have been condemned for the past eight years.

    Will the Prime Minister comment on the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland? At his press conference today he said that his object was to increase the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland. Does he realise that it lies uniquely within his hands to remedy that democratic deficit, and will he give us an assurance that he will not be held to ransom by other parties in other countries that are trying to block that remedy for their own selfish motives?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will suspend judgment and study the document. I am sure that that is the right thing to do. The document is complex, and genuinely deserves and will reward careful study. I hope that when he has studied it he will be reassured. As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, I am keen to proceed with the talks process. I look forward very much to examining the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to me on strand 1. We shall examine those quickly and pursue the discussions that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been engaged in for some time.

    Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : May I say to my right hon. Friend that it was a remarkable achievement to have received such an unambiguous statement to convince the IRA that, even by the standards of its own perverted logic, when neither Government will give it any succour or support, it has no alternative but to come to the bargaining table.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right and I see no need to reiterate his point.

    Mr. Clifford Forsythe (Antrim, South) : Is the Prime Minister aware that while the House has generally accepted his statement, the people of Northern Ireland will not perhaps look at it in the same light because for years and years and for election after election, they have voted to show that they are part of the United Kingdom? They will hardly regard the agreement as further copper fastening because they already felt that they were part of the United Kingdom. Do the Prime Minister and the House realise that the people of Northern Ireland require every encouragement to see this statement and the agreement in that light because they have always felt that they were part of the United Kingdom and they do not understand why we need an agreement to point that out?

    The Prime Minister : In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered the point when he said that the people of Northern Ireland have shown that they are part of the United Kingdom and that they feel strongly about that. The fact that they feel strongly about it and the debates that so frequently ensue in Northern Ireland mean that there is a need for reassurance and that reassurance is offered by the joint declaration today. They have shown, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom. As long as they continue to show that, they need have no doubt that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : My right hon. Friend may not be aware that 25 years ago I was serving with the Army in Northern Ireland and had the task of helping build the peace line that divided the Protestant and Catholic communities of the Shankill and Falls road. Does he accept that the initiative is not just the best chance of peace, but the only chance of peace in the foreseeable future? Does he further agree that we are talking not only about peace, but about prosperity, jobs and trade for north and south Ireland to improve the standard of living of all the people?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that has not yet been made this afternoon. Were we able to end the violence that has scarred Northern Ireland for so long, it would make a remarkable difference to the business prospects of Northern Ireland, to the prospects for tourism and to the prospects for the flow of inward investment into Northern Ireland. I can think of no single event that would raise the quality of life and the standard of material prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland than an ending of violence.

    Mr. A. Cecil Walker (Belfast, North) : I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the constitutional parties. Will he confirm that the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly is still on the table?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is still part of the strand 1 talks.

    Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real importance of the declaration is that it removes any pretext for terrorism, violence and murder and that now the onus is clearly on the men of violence to give up their arms and take the peace process further?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, that is entirely right. It is their decision and we hope that they will make it.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : It is hoped that Sinn Fein will respond positively to the joint declaration and persuade the IRA to end its armed struggle. However, some issues in the joint declaration may worry responsible Unionism in Northern Ireland–the issue of articles 2 and 3 has already been suggested. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on paragraph 11 of the declaration which deals with the establishment of a forum for peace and reconciliation? It seems that that forum is to be established by the Irish Government, although they will talk to other parties. I am not clear whether that forum is to be for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic. Is not it the case that Northern Ireland really needs a forum for peace and reconciliation and that it should be developed in that area?

    The Prime Minister : The forum to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an initiative of the Irish Government which I understood would be launched after an announcement that violence had ended. That is certainly what the Taoiseach said this morning. It would be open to all constitutional parties in the north and south, but would, of course, be entirely optional. There would be no compulsion on any party to attend.

    Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : In giving the joint declaration a cautious, but heartfelt welcome, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage in seizing what is potentially a poisoned chalice? May I press him further for crucial detail? Does his definition of a cessation of violence include the handing over of at least some weapons and explosives and will he assure the House that convicted murderers in Northern Ireland will serve the whole of their sentences?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that not only do I not have any notion in my mind of amnesty, but there is no suggestion of a reduction in sentences awarded by the courts. That is a matter for the courts and not something in which I wish to interfere. Were there to be an end to violence, the crimes that are currently being investigated would still be the subject of investigation in the future–that is the way our criminal justice system operates and it will continue to operate on that basis. We hope that there will be a surrender of some arms. The sine qua non is the absolute assurance that there is a renunciation of violence and that that renunciation is shown to be carried out.

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Does the Prime Minister recognise that the basis of a lot of the talks that have occurred in the past few weeks is the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in meeting Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein? In the spirit of expanding democracy in Northern Ireland and in the whole country, what consideration has he given to the repeal of the prevention of terrorism Act, to a lifting of the ban on Gerry Adam’s movements to this country and to the ending of the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein so that the peace process may be further hastened in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I have not given consideration to those particular matters. Indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, there is a tougher ban, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know. I indicated earlier my admiration for what the hon. Member for Foyle has done over many years, not only over recent months. The Taoiseach’s initiative did not begin a few months ago, but commenced in February 1992, at our first meeting in Downing Street, soon after he became the Taoiseach.

    Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : The Prime Minister must be pleased and proud to put the offer for peace on the table today and I, like most hon. Members, am happy about it. However, will he bear in mind that the active elements of terrorism in Northern Ireland will not wish to see a cessation of violence–the element that have what I call a gangster mentality who have been making a good living from what is going on? Some of those men will want actively to perpetrate further acts of violence under the guise of someone else. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will carefully scrutinise any transgression that may threaten the agreement so that we know who is the guilty party? While a referendum is being–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I have asked for brisk questions. I am allowing the statement to run a long time because it is so important to the House. I wish that hon. Members would not abuse my tolerance and put one question so that I can call all hon. Members who wish to speak.

    Mr. Cook : It is a most important question.

    Madam Speaker : I am sure that all questions are important. The hon. Gentleman must determine the priority of his questions.

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

    Madam Speaker : Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question speedily. I have pleaded for short questions so that other hon. Members might be called. I think that that is a fair and just way to proceed.

    Mr. Cook : Concurrent with the concurrent referendums in north and southern Ireland, can we have an appropriate and complementary referendum in the United Kingdom to find out what mainland Britain thinks?

    The Prime Minister : I had not contemplated a referendum of that sort on this particular issue. On the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that he is right. In terms of the criminal aspect that so often runs alongside terrorism, he touches on an important point. There is a possibility that terrorists might give up terrorism but that some might decide to continue with what one might call freelance gangsterism. The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, and I am glad that he did so.

    Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : Will the Prime Minister clarify the final sentence of paragraph 7, which contains the important commitment from the Taoiseach that

    “in the event of overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward proposals for changes in the Constitution which would reflect the principle of consent”?

    May I take that to mean that it does not preclude a change of that nature in the constitution in advance of a final settlement and that we might still hope that the Irish Government might, of themselves, grasp the nettle of articles 2 and 3?

    The Prime Minister : It certainly does not preclude that. The hon. Gentleman has read it entirely correctly. It is a rather allusive way of indicating the fact that articles 2 and 3 might, at an appropriate time, be put forward for changes in the Irish constitution. The hon. Gentleman has read it accurately.

    Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : In paragraph 4, the Prime Minister reiterates on behalf of the Government that Britain has no “selfish strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland.” Even if hon. Members do not like it, they must accept that many people in Northern Ireland will regard that as a betrayal, even if we think it is wrong. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by that sentence? Does not he, as a British Prime Minister, think that British citizens, many of whom lost members of their families fighting for this country in the war, might feel a little sad? Will he say what he really means by it?

    The Prime Minister : The essence of it is that our interest is benevolent, not selfish. I set out a series of ways in which I felt that that should be interpreted in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The essence is that we are not going to impose our views on the majority of the people in Northern Ireland against their wishes. That is the essence of what it is about, but it does not mean, and should not be interpreted as meaning, that we are indifferent to their concerns or their future. We are not indifferent to their concerns or to their future. That is why in terms of economic support and, for the past many years, military support to preserve security, we have shown our concern for the people of Northern Ireland–all of them, both communities– in the most tangible way possible.

    Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : I fully understand why the declaration concentrates mainly on finding ways of persuading Sinn Fein and its paramilitary allies to stop murdering people, but, as the majority of recent terrorist incidents have been the result of so-called “loyalist” paramilitary activities, does the Prime Minister agree that the whole House would never forgive people who went on carrying out such acts in the name of loyalty to the House and the state and nor would they forget politicians who condoned such activities?

    The Prime Minister : The House wants no one to murder and kill on the basis of loyalty to the Union except perhaps at a time when the country might be at war with another nation. That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is quite right–the actions of those who call themselves loyalists besmirch the Unionist cause and are not accepted by constitutional Unionists. Their activities are as malign as those of the IRA.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I hope that my reaction is not cynical, but, given the document’s emphasis on the Government’s commitment to honour

    “the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland”,

    the island of Ireland will surely remain divided in the foreseeable future. Is that not a reasonable assumption? Is it not also fair to assume that significant interested parties will seek to put on the agenda the hugely important issue of a united Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I think that I have made it clear repeatedly over the past 1 hour and 25 minutes that we believe in the principle of consent and that is what, rightly in my judgment, is enshrined in the document.

    Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : Will the Prime Minister list to what extent the British Government’s policy has been changed as a result of the joint agreement? Does he accept that merely to bring the parties to the conference table does not necessarily lessen the chance of violence? Does he recall that the last time a comprehensive peace treaty was under discussion, which all major parties had sought election successfully to support, a civil war and bloody carnage followed, the like of which we had not seen before and have not seen since?

    The Prime Minister : The joint declaration is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier.

    Mr. Field : What has changed?

    The Prime Minister : It is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier. The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in the past, but it is rather a counsel of despair. I think that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would wish to see us make a move that may end violence and lead to a constitutional settlement. That is what we are doing. In no sense do I believe that it is going to be easy, and in no sense do I believe that we can snatch at it in a second and change the whole way of life in Ireland, or even in Northern Ireland, but it is presenting an opportunity to take a first step towards securing a long-term constitutional position by ending violence. While that violence continues, no progress can be made economically and only limited progress can be made politically so it is a wholly desirable step. We are seeking to ensure that violence ends so that we can begin the further discussions that will have to take place.

    Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) : I should like to add my congratulations to those who brought about this joint declaration and I am very pleased because it is, of course, Labour party policy that there should be a united Ireland only with the consent of the people in the north. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the chill of the horror of violence in Northern Ireland goes across the border? Although we bow to the experience of Northern Ireland Members, it does not go down well to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) claim that it was only in his fiefdom. Is he aware that I lost a relative in 1973 in a pub bombing in Belfast?

    Is he aware that last night there was a peace vigil at St. Martin-in-the- Fields at which hon. Members of all parties stood with people from Northern Ireland calling for an end to violence and killing for Christmas and, we hope, onwards in Northern Ireland? There were people there from the Ophsal Commission and members of Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Does he know that people in Families Against Intimidation and Terror are saying that they are underfunded? Does he not agree with me that the civil society will have to be built in Ireland, not just political initiatives, before the people of Ireland who are against violence can come into the light and drive the men of terror into the darkness?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is right on the question of violence. Clearly, hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have had far greater experience of violence over the past 25 years than those of us with mainland constituencies. The hon. Gentleman cited his own case, and many of us will have had friends involved in the violence in Northern Ireland. In later years, perhaps most noticeably recently in the dreadful events in Warrington, that violence has spilled over to the mainland. While the brunt has been borne in Northern Ireland, I think that an understanding of what the people of Northern Ireland have suffered has increased in recent years and I think it is desirable that it has done so. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the violence spreads beyond an individual constituency, however bad things may have been in that constituency.

    The hon. Gentleman’s second point returns to a point made by one of my hon. Friends a few moments ago : nothing will do more for the economic well- being of Northern Ireland, in the short and the long term, than an end to violence.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : Bearing in mind the wide international interest in the whole of the island of Ireland, will my right hon. Friend seek the support of the Republic of Ireland in explaining the present initiative in the United States and elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend will see that we will have that support.