The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Sinn Fein

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    So you did know in advance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on Northern Ireland – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments in Bangkok on Thursday 29th February 1996 on the subject of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about how Sinn Fein could re-enter the peace process]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well the choice now is with Sinn Fein. We have set out, with the Irish government, the way that we believe matters should now proceed. There is an option for Sinn Fein. They can decide that they are going to opt into the democratic process, call a ceasefire, meet with the other parties, decide to meet the Mitchell principles and deal with decommissioning, or they can decide to opt out of the democratic process. That is a choice for Sinn Fein and the IRA, they must make that choice, I cannot make it for them and neither can anyone else. But if they decide to opt out of the democratic process, they cannot stop it, it will proceed without them, and that position is now I think entirely clear. They must make their choice.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the IRA Army Council’s comments]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    From what I have heard of it thus far it seems, frankly, rather like a sick joke. For the last 25 years the IRA have murdered people, they have bombed people, they have knee-capped people, they have dealt with people in a quite disgusting and disgraceful way. And for them to claim that anybody is responsible for what has happened in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years, except them, will be received with incredulity by anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland and by the people who have lived in Northern Ireland. I think most people will be fed up to the back teeth with these comments of this sort that we get so repeatedly from the IRA. It is time for them to realise that for 25 years they have behaved in an appalling fashion. Nobody is going to give way to them, not now, not in the future, not ever. They either decide to behave properly and get into democracy or democracy will go on without them. The sort of nonsense we had from them this evening is a pathetic response to the hopes and dreams of the people of Northern Ireland. They owe it to the people who live in Northern Ireland to make a proper response and they owe it to them to do it speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he now wanted to hear from Sinn Fein]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt about the words everyone wants to hear. They want to say unequivocally, without any doubt at all, that they have given up violence and they have given up violence for good; that they are seeking to ensure that Sinn Fein becomes a properly democratic party with the same democratic rights and obligations of the other political parties, and it will then join in the democratic process. People have waited a quarter of a century to hear that from the IRA. I think they have waited long enough. The IRA had better tell us that is what they are going to do or the rest of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom had better realise we have to proceed without them. The time for waiting is gone.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Northern Ireland – 28 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the situation in Northern Ireland, made on 28th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the Anglo-Irish summit earlier today and its implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.

    The Taoiseach and I met in Downing Street this afternoon and agreed a way forward set out in our communique, copies of which I hope by now will have been placed in the Library of the House. Let me summarise the main points of the approach.

    First, both Governments condemn unreservedly the IRA abandonment of the ceasefire and subsequent acts of terrorism, and call for the immediate and unequivocal restoration of that ceasefire.

    Secondly, we have confirmed that the two Governments will have no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is restored.

    Thirdly, we and the Irish Government will conduct further intense consultations with the parties between now and mid-March. After that, this Government will bring forward for consideration by this House appropriate legislation for the elective process and we will take other decisions necessary for the peace process to take place. As the communique makes clear, the Irish Government can support an elective process that is broadly acceptable.

    Fourthly, both Governments reaffirm their commitment to all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. These will be convened on 10 June, following a broadly acceptable elective process. Whether those negotiations will include Sinn Fein will depend on whether the ceasefire has been restored. Fifthly, we have agreed that, at the beginning of the negotiations, in order to build confidence, all participants, including Sinn Fein if the ceasefire has been restored, will need to make clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report, and to address also at the beginning of the negotiations Senator Mitchell’s proposals on decommissioning of weapons.

    I believe that these agreements and commitments represent a balanced approach, to which I hope all the parties in Northern Ireland will feel able to subscribe. No one will find in there all that he may have asked for; equally, no one need fear that his basic interests and requirements are being overlooked.

    The approach that the Taoiseach and I agreed marks out a clear route to all-party negotiations. We believe that this route is viable and direct. That is why we have set a firm date by which the negotiations will be launched. There is still the detail to be filled in, and some important issues to be settled. That is the purpose of the intensive consultations due to start next week and last until mid-March. But we now have the framework and a time scale to address and to decide these matters.

    We are ready to meet all the parties in whatever format best suits them, but I repeat that there can be no dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is unequivocally restored. That, I must tell the House, is the position of the Irish Government as well.

    The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government, we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable. The second issue is the nature and role of an elected body that will come out of the elections. Again, there are strongly held views, although many believe that such a body has a role to play as a forum for peace. The third issue is the format, structure and agenda of the negotiations themselves.

    We have been discussing these issues intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government for some time. I should have liked to be in a position to announce agreement on these issues and to be able to publish detailed proposals today. There are, however, still gaps to be filled in.

    If I judge that it would be helpful, I may put forward to the parties, and perhaps publish, specific written proposals during the consultations. At the end of that period, the two Governments will review the outcome. Whether or not final agreement on all issues can be reached during that period, let me make it clear that, at the end of it, the Government will put forward to the House legislative proposals for elections in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the other outstanding arrangements will also be announced.

    These decisions will be taken on the basis of a judgement of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided to act in this way to make it clear that the process cannot be held up further if, in the end, there is still a complete lack of agreement.

    We are taking these decisions upon ourselves–together, where appropriate, with the Irish Government–because we do not believe that the overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland for lasting peace will brook further delay. We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities.

    There is one other aspect of the communique that I should bring to the attention of the House–the suggestion that there could be referendums in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. These could be held on the same day as the proposed election in Northern Ireland. The aim would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak clearly about their own commitment to peaceful democratic methods and rejection of violence.

    The Government will consider further with the parties whether such a referendum would be valuable or not. There is clearly room for debate about what the question or questions should be in such a referendum, but we will listen to the views of the parties, and make our own views clear at the end of the consultation period.

    Meanwhile, let there be no doubt on three points. The first is that there is no place whatsoever for violence or the threat of violence in the peace process or in the negotiations themselves. Those who advocate violence, or who do not dissociate themselves clearly from its use or the threat of its use by others, cannot expect others to go on sitting at the negotiating table with them.

    Senator Mitchell’s report sets out clear principles on democracy and non-violence, makes clear the priority to be attached to the decommissioning of illegal weapons, and makes proposals on how that can be tackled. These issues, however difficult, cannot be dodged. They will be on the table at the beginning of negotiations. If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table.

    The second point is that there has never been any justification for terrorism or violence in Northern Ireland. These proposals and the firm commitment to all-party negotiations by a fixed date will remove any lingering thread of obfuscation and pretence about that.

    The third point is that the battle against terrorism is being intensified. Co-operation between the British and the Irish Governments has never been better than it is at the moment. We will hunt down those responsible for the bombings and killings, and maintain security at whatever level is necessary to protect the citizens of this country as they go about their daily business. The people of this country and of the Irish Republic have made clearer than ever before their demand for an end to violence. That demand must now be met, and the people have the right to expect the violence to stop for good.

    The search for peace has been much complicated by the resumption of terrorism on 9 February; but the Government said that we would not be deflected from our efforts, and we have not been. I am grateful for the support for our efforts that we have received from all parts of the House and across all parties. We and the Irish Government are united in our determination to stamp out terrorism and to bring a lasting peace. With the support of this House, I believe that we will succeed. But I must warn the House that the road ahead may yet be long and stony. The men of violence will not give up lightly. Among them are people who do not truly want peace as we in this House understand it.

    As we go through the process leading to the negotiations, and as we take the difficult decisions that lie ahead, concerns will be raised from this or that side, and this or that interest. We will take account of all views, but we will not be deflected from our central objective, because the men, women and children of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demand no less of us. Their lives and their futures must be our first concern. I commend to the House this approach to negotiations and, ultimately, to a lasting and comprehensive peace.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 23 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London on Friday 23rd February 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction this morning to Mr Thurnham’s resignation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am surprised, to be honest. I had a lengthy conversation with Peter and Sarah last evening and we had a very friendly conversation, a very amiable conversation and we were going to meet again next week. So I am a little surprised, I don’t quite know what happened after I finished my meeting with him.

    QUESTION:

    What will this mean for the debate on Monday on Scott?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that it makes any difference to the debate at all on Monday, I wasn’t sure what Peter was going to do, I don’t know what Peter is going to do now, but I expect that we will win the vote on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident that you can win that vote?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I think we will win the vote on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    And will you ensure that there is indeed a division on that subject?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not for me to ensure there is a division, I think the Opposition will probably ensure there is a division and I think we can rely upon them to do that. There is a capability for division. If the Opposition are entirely satisfied and don’t wish to divide, that is a matter for them.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a danger now, as Sir Teddy Taylor was saying this morning, of an election before the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe so. I have always expected to go through to the spring of 1997 and I still expect to go through to the spring of 1997.

    QUESTION:

    This has been described as a betrayal by his own Constituency Association people, do you feel betrayed by what he has done?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Peter will have worked very closely with his constituency and his constituency will have worked very closely with him and very hard for him over the years, so I can understand that people feel very worried about this. I don’t think that is the sort of language that I am in the business of using. Peter has been a parliamentary colleague for a very long time. I am very saddened and disappointed at his decision. I am not quite sure what temporarily resigning the Whip means, but I am sure Peter will be in touch to say what it means.

    QUESTION:

    Is your door still open to him to come back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My door is open to every Member of Parliament almost all the time, I spend a lot of time talking to Members of Parliament.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Are you concerned about further defections?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not expecting any.

    QUESTION:

    What would you say to any Tories who may be considering doing something similar?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any, so I don’t think the situation arises.

    QUESTION:

    On Ireland, you will be seeing George Mitchell today, we understand you have had a number of meetings in the last 24 hours, are you hoping that the peace process in a meaningful way can be put back together in the next few days, with a summit perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said repeatedly that I am not prepared to give up on the process, neither is John Bruton. We had a further conversation this morning. As you say, I will be seeing George Mitchell later on today, that is not to negotiate, it is to discuss what has happened and to update him on our thinking. And then I expect to be speaking to the Taoiseach again over the weekend. We are working towards a summit, we are not going to call a summit until we have done some further work. There is a huge amount of discussion and negotiation going on at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you will meet him before you go to Bangkok?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would be my hope to meet him before we go to Bangkok, I can’t be certain that that will be the case but that would be my wish if it is achievable.

    QUESTION:

    Sinn Fein were saying last night that the package that appears to be being put together, they were interested in and certainly wanted to look at. Do you feel that there is any realistic prospect at this stage that they can be brought back in, from what you are hearing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    From what we have heard from Sinn Fein in the past, there ought never to have been a breach of the ceasefire. So I am a little sceptical about what I hear Sinn Fein saying, I think it is actions from now on we will wish to see from Sinn Fein and the IRA. I think we would be cautious about any words, we have been in the past, we now have every reason to be more cautious. It is actions we will wish to see from them. But we will continue and I hope we will be able to have a summit before the European Union/Asia Conference in Bangkok. I cannot be certain about that yet, and neither can John Bruton be certain about that. If we can achieve it, we will.

    QUESTION:

    What would Sinn Fein have to do, in your view, to get back into the process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These are matters that will become apparent over the next few days. Let us finish the discussions we are having and then we will make it quite clear.

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    So who makes the next move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

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

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Pienaar, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are misinterpreting what the Taoiseach said.

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Reid – RTE):

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Don McIntyre):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not with us.

    1. BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Smith – UK News):

    What has changed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – SKY NEWS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

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

    1. BRUTON:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    QUESTION (Same Man):

    Why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Irish Independent):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (OTE News, Belfast):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    That was central to your discussion with him presumably?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, that is still the position.

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Back to or back from?

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Bernard Persil, Irish Independent):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you….

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] serving soldiers, I spoke to them.

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the expansion of NATO?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • PMQT – 4 May 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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