The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the 1996 Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 11 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall in London on Monday 11th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You set out as the theme of your speech “Making Britain even Greater”. Not just – “great”. But – “even greater”. You acknowledge accurately what we are already and seek to improve it. That is exactly right.

    There is a part of the British character that undersells our achievements and over emphasises our difficulties.

    As a fault it is one on the right side. As a nation, we would not be comfortable with a boastful nationalistic posture, but we shouldn’t let our talent for understatement mislead others either about our prospects and abilities or our national character.

    My Lord Mayor, let me develop your theme. Because it is my theme too.

    Long gone are the days when the British economy was bedeviled by restrictive practices, strikes, high tax levels, runaway inflation and government controls.

    It has taken over a decade and a half to make fundamental, lasting changes to improve our economic performance. But we have done it. Some of it was very hard. There have been setbacks as well as advances.

    In the six years since I first spoke at this dinner, we have passed out of a turbulent recession, and emerged in vigorous economic health.

    We have turned round our economic prospects. We are back in the first rank. We are building a prosperity that will last.

    Too often, past recoveries were derailed by a yawning trade gap or soaring inflation. But not this time.

    All the evidence is that we have moved from a country prone to erratic bouts of high inflation, to one where subdued inflation can be the norm. If that is so, it is a change of historic importance.

    We now have a longer, more sustained recovery than any major European economy, with lower unemployment and inward investment flooding in.

    As a result, we are pulling ahead of the European field. To stay ahead we will need to go on pursuing the policies that are giving us this advantage.

    We have reined back public expenditure to well below the average of our European competitors – a difference worth £2000 to the average household in lower taxes. We now have the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years, and a lower target still before us.

    Strikes are now down to a twenty-fifth of the 1979 figure. And huge swathes of industry – telecoms, gas, water, electricity, airlines and the bulk of the rail network have been transferred to the private sector, where they belong and are prospering. Daily we see evidence of this in lower prices for consumers, more investment in the future, and increased success in overseas markets.

    That is the argument for privatisation, and we shall look at more areas where private sector discipline can improve economic performance and service to the public.

    My Lord Mayor, the truth is that we may have to brace ourselves to hearing an increasing chorus describing Britain as a success.

    We are not going to throw away those hard won advances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that when he acted on interest rates a week or so ago. And we’ll ram the message home with a prudent and sensible Budget – one that will keep us on the path of growth and prosperity for years ahead.

    Next year our country will have the most secure economic base for generations. We can turn to the future and plan with confidence.

    Ahead of us lie changes that we should embrace with enthusiasm because of the opportunities they bring with them.

    I believe we can expect a tremendous growth in world trade and economic development. Around the world trade barriers are withering.

    The dynamism of the single market is on our doorstep.

    Newly industrialised economies are emerging in East Asia and Latin America.

    The collapse of communism has opened up new markets and new competitors.

    We are well placed to take advantage of these opportunities.

    The world is turning to free trade. I welcome this. It makes countries more competitive, and more prosperous, and it gives consumers a better deal. It is in Britain’s interest, given our potential to win in the world markets of tomorrow. And it is the best way to help the developing world into long term prosperity.

    I have always felt there is something rather objectionable about rich countries grandly handing out aid with one hand, while with the other they block trade access that would enable poorer countries to become more self sufficient.

    Earlier today the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade published a White Paper setting out our vision of global free trade by 2020.

    This means free trade in services – especially important for the City – as well as free trade in goods. It goes together with our determination to secure free and open markets for investment and capital.

    Day by day the very nature of trade is changing. It’s no longer dominated by freighters full of coal and steel. Now it’s as likely to be a service like broadcasting or tourism, or some tiny high tech component smaller than a fingernail assembled in four different pieces in four different continents.

    We are well placed to prosper in this new trading environment. In the last great age of British enterprise, the influence of this small island was spread world wide by the efforts of countless men and women, who often risked everything they had to trade and invest around the globe.

    That’s left the benevolent legacy that Britain has Links with nearly every corner of the world.

    They aren’t nebulous links. They have real substance. Britain is second only to the United States in our ownership of overseas assets around the world. Those assets don’t just earn dividends. They give us a vital edge in overseas markets.

    And the City of London remains an asset beyond price, as the dominant financial centre in our continent.

    And, on top of all this, we have the great advantage of the world’s international trading language. Worldwide, one in five people speak some English and it is an official language in over 70 countries.

    Six years of being Prime Minister has shown me these are real assets that can help us to realise our potential as one of the leading global trading nations of the 21st century.

    We are living in a world where the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the massive populations and economic growth of Asia and the Pacific Basin. In the global marketplace, we must compete with these countries in their markets and match their competitiveness round the world.

    We need to raise our eyes to this wider horizon. Some fear the development of global markets. They think it breeds insecurity. They believe that by shutting themselves off they can somehow be stronger. But history shows they are wrong. No country has ever prospered behind closed doors. The free movement of goods, people and ideas has always been a source of wealth.

    Our future economic security and prosperity will come from our success in competing in the free market, not trying to cocoon ourselves from it.

    So I am determined to develop further Britain’s position as the most competitive, low tax, enterprise centre in Europe.

    We have the lowest tax burden on business of any major European country. Low social costs, no Social Chapter and no minimum wage.

    This is what is making us more competitive and marks us out as a prime target for inward investment.

    Today’s investment is footloose and fancy-free. It will go where tax is low and opportunity is high. So it is coming to Britain.

    That’s why we’re bucking the trend and creating jobs, not dole queues.

    So we will continue with those policies and resist proposals that would damage our competitiveness, cost us markets, and lose us jobs.

    That is why the Working Time Directive, on which a European court judgement is expected tomorrow, represents an important point of principle.

    We are in favour of good working conditions in this country. They are very important. But the basic employee protections are long established in domestic law. There’s no case for extra prescriptive legislation from Europe – imposed by qualified majority voting against British objections – on matters that are now best resolved between employer and employee.

    That is why, if the court rules against us, we will require changes in European law to reinforce Britain’s protection from such legislation. Our partners know that. And they know that we shall insist upon these changes before we can conclude any new agreements at the Intergovernmental Conference next year.

    In the next decade the speed of change may worry some people. We British love progress. But we hate change. We shouldn’t – it will bring greater prosperity.

    We must look forward. No one ever reversed into prosperity. Progress will certainly change our lives. Information technology will bring new services available at the touch of a button in the home – banking, buying groceries, booking a flight, access to almost unlimited information and entertainment.

    We will see medical consultants diagnosing and even treating patients through information and pictures piped possibly hundreds of miles to their surgery.

    Dealings with government will be transformed – with services available on a terminal in your library or post office or even in your home.

    Children in schools may be coached at their own pace through a new generation of interactive software.

    These changes will happen. We’re making them happen. And this is a revolution where Britain is well placed to stay in front.

    Our telecommunications and media markets are amongst the most competitive and developed in the world. They will be able to take the new opportunities because two decades of deregulation and privatisation have enabled them to become market leaders.

    We are already one of the leading countries in the use of personal computers at home and in schools. And, by the end of this century, most households will have access to a range of new hi-tech services through cable, satellite and the telephone network.

    We’re becoming one of the laboratories of the world in the development of information technology. All of this means that the new, global information and media industries are truly industries in which we can win – and win handsomely.

    My Lord Mayor, the prospect before us is to become one of the world’s most successful global trading nations in the 21st Century.

    We have been through an industrial and economic revolution. We haven’t been beaten down by that effort. We’ve shown we have the skills and strength to win. But the last crucial ingredient for our future success is national self-confidence. There are always people prepared to write Britain off. They are always wrong.

    Listening to the political debate, you might sometimes get the impression that confidence is something we don’t have as a nation, or even that it’s something that we can’t have.

    But if you lift your eyes beyond the charmed circle of professional pessimists, you get a quite different picture.

    The City of London has the greatest concentration of foreign banks in the world.

    Britain has won more Nobel prizes than any nation except the US.

    As you pointed out, Britain has won a third of all Oscars in the last 30 years.

    Our streets are bustling with foreign tourists.

    Our pubs, clubs and restaurants are packed.

    Our television programmes are in demand worldwide.

    Our education system attracts half a million foreign students a year.

    Our theatres give the lead to Broadway.

    Our pop culture rules the airwaves.

    Our country has taken over the fashion catwalks of Paris.

    And our capital is described in an American magazine as “the coolest city on the planet”.

    So, my Lord Mayor, you are right. We have every reason to believe in ourselves.

    It’s time to parade our virtues as a country. To show – at home and abroad – how far Britain has come in economic progress and in the quality of our life and culture.

    We can surprise others as well as ourselves.

    We have a nation of talent in a world of opportunity.

    Not for a very long time have we been so well placed for future success.

    The fact is: Britain is back in business – and it’s back to stay.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Zaire (III) – 8 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Zaire, made in an interview held in Bordeaux on Friday 8th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the current situation in Zaire and what was needed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to discuss with a wide range of countries precisely what’s needed. It’s going to the United Nations, that’s clearly the right forum for discussing it. That help is needed in Zaire I think is beyond question, I don’t think anyone doubts that, the humanitarian problem is self-evident and very serious. What the right solution is requires a bit more discussion.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if British troops would be sent to Zaire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are many areas and ways in which people can help. Nobody quite knows yet what the troops are going to do, are they going to open the corridor? Are they going to be there simply as a broad and friendly presence? Mrs Ogata [Sadako Ogata], the High Commissioner for Refugees, has put forward one plan, others have put forward other plans, they need to be discussed.

    We need to know whether the host Governments would welcome them. We need to know whether the Governments in the region would accept them. We need to know whether there will be an African presence amongst the troops. We would need to know what the mission of the troops would be. They’re all matters which are vital to the decision, and there’s been no discussion about those matters yet.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether France would be the only country sending troops].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They’re plainly not going to be, because they’ve said they won’t send any troops unless the United States do. They’ve agreed therefore that it needs to be discussed in international forums, and plainly that is going to be the United Nations.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Zaire (II) – 8 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Zaire, made in an interview held in Bordeaux on Friday 8th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a divide between France and the UK on Zaire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that anyone doubts that there is going to be a need for help in Zaire, we certainly don’t, and equally we think it is right that that matter should go to the United Nations and be properly discussed. The question is what is the right sort of help? The wrong sort of help could damage rather than assist. So I think we need to discuss with the countries in the region, primarily of course with the United Nations, with the OAU, precisely what is the right sort of help. I suspect we will begin that discussion today, but it can’t of course conclude in an Anglo-French bilateral meeting, it will need to be discussed in a wider forum.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if no country was taking responsibility for the problems in Zaire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it clearly goes to the United Nations. Mrs Ogata, the High Commissioner for Refugees at the United Nations, has put forward some plans, they need to be discussed. Others have suggested plans, they need to be discussed as well. But this is going to involve the international community so it has to be discussed in the international forum, and that is going to be the United Nations. I believe that should be done speedily and I have no doubt when that is done in one way or another Britain will play a role.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if troops would be sent].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is certainly possible. It is not yet certain that that is the right thing to do and clearly it would be desirable if there was a large contingent of African troops, that is clearly an area where African troops would have a particular expertise. I have no doubt that Britain may be involved in some way, whether it is logistic support, whether it is financial support, whether possibly even if it is troop support, I don’t rule that out. We would certainly be prepared to play our part. But we do need to discuss what is the best way to address the problem that exists and that does need some discussions. I know it is frustrating, I know it needs to be done speedily, I hope it will be, and that is one of the matters we will discuss this morning.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would back the French UN Resolution on military action].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends on the discussions, it depends precisely on what the view of the host nations are. You can’t just send troops into a region without the consent of the people who live in the region. So I think we have to approach this in the proper manner, as I have said. I don’t rule out the prospect of us contribution but I think we are not yet ready to make that decision.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Zaire (I) – 8 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Zaire, made in an interview held in Bordeaux on Friday 8th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how Britain would be helping Zaire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have traditionally made a very substantial contribution whenever there is humanitarian aid required. We have a very proud record in that respect. I don’t think anyone doubts the scale of the potential difficulties in the Zaire region and we spent some time discussing that last evening and will return to it again this morning. But I think there are a wide raft of options for how we might help and it is unclear yet precisely what will be done.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain might send troops to the region].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is premature to decide upon that at the moment. The first thing that would be necessary of course would be to have the consent of the governments in the host region, that has not yet been obtained, and then clearly there would be a question of what the command structure would be, what the mission would actually be and under whose auspices they would go. Those are all very sensitive areas for many of the African governments, so there is a great deal of discussion and I think that can best be held in the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how Britain would vote in the French UN Resolution on military intervention].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the resolution yet but I am unsurprised that that is being discussed, and I don’t rule out the option of assisting in that way, but I say at the moment it is premature. Ideally one would want to see a substantial contribution from African nations to any such force, but until we know what the mission would be, until we know what the purpose it, is it to open an humanitarian corridor, is it a more broad and widespread intervention? These are matters not yet considered by any collective gathering at all. They will need to be considered and it may be at the end of the day that the right thing to do is to have some form of international force. But I think the host governments and others would regard that as premature just at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if something needed to be done urgently to stop the human tragedy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A great deal is being done. But I don’t think it is a question of passing the buck, this clearly has to come under the auspices of the United Nations and the OAU, those are the areas that I think one would require to discuss this in, and that is now beginning to happen, so I don’t think there is going to be undue delay.

  • UK / French Joint Declaration on Zaire – 8 November 1996

    Below is the text of the joint UK / French Declaration on Zaire, issued on 8th November 1996.

    JOINT DECLARATION:

    The President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have discussed the situation in the Zairean province of Kivu and the tragic situation currently being experienced by more than one million people deprived of humanitarian assistance.

    The two countries have decided to coordinate their efforts closely, especially within the framework of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union, so that the necessary international arrangements can swiftly be put in place to enable humanitarian aid reliably to reach displaced persons and refugees in Zaire once again. They are ready to contribute to this with the longer term objective of enabling the voluntary return of these people to their country of origin.

    France and the United Kingdom remain convinced that in addition to this immediate humanitarian objective, a political solution to the problems should be found in association with the Governments in the region. In this connection, preparation for the International Conference on Peace, Security and Development for the Great Lakes Region under the aegis of the United Nations and the OAU should begin as soon as possible.

    John Major.

    Jacques Chirac.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Bordeaux – 8 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given in Bordeaux on Friday 8th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Prime Minister. Let me firstly thank you for your hospitality today and for the splendid meetings we were also able to have yesterday afternoon.

    What I think is beyond doubt is the extent to which the Anglo-French relationship has not only improved but has entered into new spheres and has become much more substantial at present than at any stage in the past that I can remember. It is not only a political relationship, it is a military relationship and an industrial and commercial relationship. I had the pleasure yesterday of going to Toulouse and there I saw the remarkable collaborative venture – Airbus – which has just had a splendid success in achieving such a magnificent order from the United States. It is I think the most sparkling example yet of European collaboration on important projects and it is moving rapidly to becoming the most significant aircraft production company in the world.

    But this is by no means the only area of joint interest. Joint interests in defence where we have not only worked together so closely in Bosnia, but had many other joint interests: a joint Anglo/French Air Group, established when we met some time ago; a joint Naval Agreement, signed by our Defence Ministers this morning; and agreements planned on further cooperation between our armies that I hope we will be able to sign on our next occasion.

    This is by no means an exclusive list but it is an indication of the huge range of cooperation at present between our two countries and their industries and their national institutions.

    This morning we met, Mr President, to cover a whole range of bilateral and international matters. We met here in Bordeaux in a room that had been destroyed by terrorist action not very long ago. I think it is right we should have met in that room, right to emphasise our joint determination not to be blown off course by any terrorist action, whatever it may be for, wherever it may come, however severe it may be. I hope the place of our meeting this morning will be a powerful symbol of our joint determination to stand against terrorism.

    There are other areas of great importance where we have work in progress and where we are equally determined. The fight against drugs is a particular illustration. Again I saw yesterday an illustration of the French and the British working together against the drugs menace that afflicts and threatens both our communities. These are areas where we share instincts and where we share a determination to work together, convinced that together we can better face the menaces that confront us.

    We discussed many international matters, as you said Mr President, upon most of which we have a very similar view. What was evident in the discussions we had was that there are a very great range of areas upon which we agree, a rather smaller list of areas upon which we do not yet agree, but that even in those areas we are able to have a worthwhile and constructive debate to see what areas of agreement can be reached and to understand the reasons why, from time to time, agreement is not perhaps total.

    I thought our meeting this morning illustrated the excellent nature of Anglo-French relationships very well. And it was startling also to see the extent of agreement between our Ministers upon their individual subjects. I believe we can say, with total sincerity, that the Anglo-French relationship is in good heart. I for one welcome that very much. We share interests on the Security Council, in the European Union, in NATO, in many other international bodies and in being the two Western European nuclear powers. I daresay there will never be a moment when upon every single issue there is unanimity between my country and yours, but the areas of disagreement are dwarfed by the areas of agreement. That has been illustrated yet again in a very clear way in the discussions we have had today.

    There is one area upon which we are in total agreement, and that is the sheer pleasure and joy of sitting down to a French meal with French wines, and I am conscious that only I am standing between you and that French meal and the French wine.

    So I will repeat my thanks for the warmth of your hospitality, for the Prime Minister’s hospitality and for that of the people of Bordeaux. I am deeply grateful for the way we have been received and thank you very much indeed.

  • John Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 8 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Chirac of France, given in Bordeaux on Friday 8th November 1996.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Good Afternoon. First of all let me welcome the British delegation, Ministers and their officials with them. On behalf of the Mayor of Bordeaux and on my own account I would like to wish them the warmest welcome.

    This morning we have had meetings, as you will be aware. Can I also take this opportunity to welcome the British and French journalists who are here for this press conference.

    So we had meetings this morning and then we had the plenary meeting, which is the usual custom in these summits. And very briefly I will go over what has been said and done at this 19th Anglo-French Summit.

    Of course we talked about monetary union yesterday evening at dinner. Nothing has moved on that. I informed the Prime Minister about the French position, which you are all aware of.

    The British Prime Minister of course repeated to me the British position, which you are aware of.

    On the Intergovernmental Conference, which we discussed this morning, it seems that there are many areas of common ground, although there are still areas where there are differences of opinion. Those areas where we have common ground are our determination to make a significant forward progress at Dublin and to conclude our Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam next June. There is also agreement in principle on a range of issues: the role of national parliaments; the principle of subsidiarity and the implementation thereof; weighting of voting; the size of the Commission; the European Parliament; the Court of Justice. Those are the main headings that we addressed and where we have common ground. Those areas where we differ, there are some still. We have worked on them already and we are trying to clarify our respective positions to see how far we can harmonise our positions on the question of qualified majority voting, defence and matters relating to the third pillar.

    Then there is a particular subject where there is some ambiguity where we need to reflect further in the coming weeks, and this is everything referring to enhanced cooperation and the implementation of that cooperation. On the question of enlargement we are largely in agreement: equal treatment from the outset for all countries and I have proposed the convening of a European Conference as a substitute for the meetings that we now have with the 11 candidate nations for entry into the Union and I feel that the present arrangement for the meetings with the representatives of those nations is not correct and we should have a European Conference where more serenely and more calmly we should discuss together with our future partners the way in which things are evolving. But there is no question of this conference being in any way a substitute for the procedure relating to accession to the Union. It is a dialogue.

    We have noted that we have common ground in our reaction to the unilateral trade measures taken by the US Government, the Helms-Burton-D’Amato legislation, and the need for the Community to respond as one.

    We have also noted that we have an identical viewpoint on the need to strengthen our efforts to combat drugs and as quickly as possible to try and ensure that all European legislation is harmonised and it is as firm on this problem.

    We have also discussed BSE and on this we noted that information that was in the headlines of the press some days back, that the British were not complying with the conditions they accepted in Florence was wrong, and we took the occasion to rectify that misinformation. And the Prime Minister reconfirmed to me that the United Kingdom fully shares the concerns of France regarding bananas.

    Then we turned to political and strategic issues and I would say that the areas of common ground between France and the United Kingdom, and of course including Germany, have allowed us to reach agreement on the reform of NATO. We discussed the situation and outstanding problems regarding the general reform of NATO, which France could support. We talked about the enlargement of NATO which we are favourable to on condition that that enlargement takes place in conditions that are from the outside acceptable to Russia, although of course there is no question of giving Russia a veto on this. But we also said we need a European security architecture that covers the whole of Europe and which will enable us to turn the page and go forward from Yalta. We also noted that our approach to the forthcoming OSCE Summit in Lisbon was identical.

    Then we turned to international issues and there again we have identical views on many areas, like the former Yugoslavia, the forthcoming conferences on Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, in Paris and in London, on post-IFOR. We also expressed our concern regarding the process of peace in the Middle East, again an area of common ground, our concern. And then we have an identical approach of our countries in our relations with Russia. And in conclusion, something that we began with, we have a common position on the drama that Zaire is currently subject to with refugees being chased out of their refugee camps in the Kivo province. You are aware that we published a joint communique on this this morning and indeed it was on that point that we began our discussion.

    Then finally on bilateral issues, we noted that military cooperation between our two countries was increasingly more wide-ranging and was taking place in very efficient and friendly terms, and our respective Defence Ministers have just signed a Naval Cooperation Agreement. The Joint Franco-British Air Group is going to be expanded to include Germany and Italy. On armaments we also noted that important and significant progress had been made in areas of cooperation. The United Kingdom is going to join the European Armaments Agency, where France and Germany are already members, and we have several important agreements, the agreement between British Aerospace and Masa in particular.

    As regards the Eurotunnel, we noted that there is a problem there and that together we need to study this and find the best possible solution, taking account of the constraints on both sides, both in the United Kingdom and in France.

    And we noted the fact that initiatives, particularly on drugs and school exchanges, that we decided when I went on a State Visit to Britain last year, we noted that these initiatives were well under way and we were very happy to note that that was the case.

    Just two further points that are quite important we noted that we have excellent cooperation in the implementation of the conclusions of the G7 regarding multilateral debt; we also noted that we had agreement on security of the international financial system, looking forward to Denver. So we have an identical approach and focus on these matters.

    And finally, in the same spirit, we noted that there has been intensification of cooperation on security and anti-terrorism measures with enhanced cooperation between our respective services. The cooperation is already good but we look forward to it being continued effectively. I think that is what we have done today. Just one further step forward in the cooperation between France and Great Britain which is characterised by friendship and trust. Thank you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add a few words to what the President has said. If I may at the outset, I would like to thank the President and the Prime Minister for their hospitality yesterday and today in Bordeaux and also the people of Bordeaux. It is always a disruption to normal life when one of these summits takes place, but we have had an enormously warm reception here and for that I would like to express my very deep thanks.

    I think we have had an excellent summit today. It is built on a very good relationship and a very wide range of mutual interests, both bilaterally and internationally.

    The President has summarised with great detail many of the matters we discussed and I will just perhaps emphasise a few of the points very briefly. We spent some time last evening and this morning discussing Zaire, as indeed did our Foreign Ministers. It is a complex issue. I don’t think anyone doubts the humanitarian difficulties that are building up there, or the need for help and assistance in the region. We intend to work constructively with our French colleagues, with the rest of the international community, and try and play our role in getting clear decisions taken most appropriately I think at the United Nations, as to what international action is most appropriate. The United Kingdom already makes strong humanitarian commitments to African countries, including Zaire, and I have no doubt we will have a role of some sort in whatever decisions are taken and clearly it is important that decisions about Zaire are clear-cut and taken speedily and we both agreed that that should be the case.

    We spent quite a lot of time this morning discussing European Union issues. It is very fashionable, of course, to concentrate on the areas of difference amongst European partners. We discussed those, of course, we also noted the areas of agreement: on national sovereignty; on the role of national parliaments; on subsidiarity; on the desirability, the necessity even, of re-weighting the votes in the European Union; on the need for a reduction in the size of the Commission; on common foreign and security policy where there is very wide agreement, not total agreement but very wide agreements on enlargement; on the powers of the European Parliament; and on our joint wish to look again at the powers of the European Court of Justice, particularly in the areas where they make retrospective judgments that change European law and lead to large domestic expenditure within individual nation states. Many of these matters are matters where we are coordinating and we will endeavour as far as we can to see whether we can form a common position on many of these issues between now and the Dublin Summit and certainly between now and the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference.

    Over the last two or three years there has been a very dramatic extension of our defence cooperation and today, in addition to discussion between our Defence Ministers of course there has been discussion between a wide range of senior Ministers covering their own individual subjects, and I am grateful to all of them for their role in this summit.

    As far as defence is concerned, we had an Air Agreement that the President and I signed some time ago. Our Defence Ministers signed a Letter of Intent on Naval Cooperation this morning and that builds on the strong military cooperation, including nuclear cooperation, that we already have. And our Defence Ministers will be further examining the scope for yet more practical detailed cooperation as far as our Armies are concerned to match that that exists with the Air Force and with the Navy.

    We also do a considerable amount of work together on drugs and I saw yesterday the work of French anti-drugs forces in Bordeaux. Here is an area, as the French said, where we believe it is appropriate to continue to press across Europe for a mere effective way of working together and for some coordination, some toughening of the penalties for drug offences across the European Union. We have very tough penalties already in the United Kingdom, we would be very pleased to see them reflected right the way across the nation states of Europe.

    We spent a little while also on terrorism, that is a problem that both of us have had to face from time to time. Indeed the room where we met this morning was afflicted with a bomb attack just a few months ago.

    On international issues of course we discussed the aftermath of the US elections, the Middle East peace process, Bosnia, Iraq and a range of other areas.

    We both noted with considerable pleasure the tremendous progress that has been made by the collaborative venture, Airbus. Many were sceptical about that when it started, but think it has probably proved itself the most effective piece of European collaborative industrial ventures that we have yet seen. It has taken a very large percentage of the international aircraft market and it has ambitions to become the largest aircraft supplier in the world. So that is going extremely well and we were delighted at the orders that Airbus got yesterday from the United States.

    We discussed also, as the President said, areas where we are not quite in agreement. It is inevitable that there are some of those. We have a relationship where we can discuss the areas of agreement, and the areas of disagreement, with complete frankness. We do have some different perceptions on some European matters and we were able to discuss those to see where we can narrow the differences and to ensure that there are no misunderstandings between us.

    We also looked at a range of bilateral initiatives, most of which are going extremely well, the exchange of students and a range of other matters perhaps I need not detain you with.

    So I found it an extremely worthwhile exchange of views. I think it is the 7th time the President and I have had the opportunity of exchanging views like this and I think that cumulative series of meetings is showing a good deal, of results in terms of the growing and deepening relationship between the United Kingdom and France.

    So I am very grateful for the meeting we have had here today and I think the President and I will be happy to try and field any questions that you may have.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    President Chirac, you mentioned discussions on the IGC and Mr Major has said that if the European Court finds against Britain on the 48 hours working directive he will be seeking treaty amendments. Would he have your support in seeking such treaty amendments following a European Court of Justice decision? And on the communique on Zaire, could I ask why there is no reference to military action given that France was suggesting, in advance of today, that countries not prepared to commit themselves to military action were spineless?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the dispute between the United Kingdom and the Court, I am very close to John Major’s position on this and quite prepared to support him. Turning to Zaire, France had never proposed a military engagement in Zaire. What we had said was if there were to be an international force, requested by the African states and controlled by the UN and the OAU, then France would be prepared to join and make a contribution to such a force to enable the refugees to go back to their camps and to enable humanitarian aid to get through, because humanitarian aid is already there on the ground but unfortunately cannot be got to the refugees

    Yesterday there was a meeting of the 15, there was a meeting of the Security Council, there is a whole series of contacts that are going between the countries, members of the Union and the United States, despite the fact that this has happened on the day of the elections in the United States. And France wants and hopes that, provided the Africans ask for intervention in the conditions that I have said, we would be prepared to respond.

    QUESTION:

    President, can you really talk about a common resolution on Zaire when France has got a draft resolution before the United Nations and as the Prime Minister seems to be more than reticent, don’t you think that we are losing a lot of time and time is of the essence in this?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You have seen the Franco-British communique. There is no divergence of views between us on this. We all want to try and get a solution on humanitarian grounds as quickly as possible but that doesn’t mean that we can just go ahead and do just anything.

    Yesterday evening at about 8 p m., I had a call from President Mandela who was trying to get in touch with President Mobuto. Mobuto had said that he would be favourable to have a force coming to Zaire. You have to take into account that all this would be coming into Zaire so Mobuto said he would accept a neutral force on Zairean territory.

    All this means that we have to reflect and there has to be a certain amount of agreement among the Africans. It is not our role to go ahead with any initiative against their wishes, this is their affair.

    Of course, we denounce what is happening on humanitarian grounds and we the Europeans – the Union – will do everything we can to improve the humanitarian situation but there is the reality that it is not happening here in our countries so we must have agreement with the Africans as to what we are going to do because otherwise we can’t do anything.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add a point to that question because there is no difference between France and Britain about the importance of seeking international help into Zaire, both France and Britain are already providing it. We have a very long – a very proud record I think, both countries – of helping in humanitarian situations.

    The question is to decide what precisely needs to be done and how it can be done and that does require some further international discussion. For example, you mentioned particularly the question of troops. We need to know what the host governments would think about that, what would the adjacent governments think about that, would there be a preference for African troops, would they want European involvement, would they want European logistic support, would they just want European financial support, how is that going to be dealt with via the United Nations, what would be the view of the Organisation for African Unity?

    There is no dispute between the President and I whatsoever about the urgency and imperative nature of trying to get some extra help there. No-one who sees those pictures coming out of the Great Lakes district can be in any doubt about that and nobody who knows the history of France or the history of the United Kingdom in assisting in humanitarian problems of this sort can doubt our willingness to assist but what we have to do is to make sure that we coordinate with other people to provide assistance that is appropriate. If it is appropriate at some stage to go ahead with troops, what is to be their mission? That needs to be discussed and determined, the command structure.

    What I am not doing is arguing for a long delay, what I am saying is that we need to get the answers to those questions right before we can take decisions. France has raised the urgency of those questions, it is now being discussed in the United Nations, France has some plans, Mrs. Ogata has some plans, other people have plans. The urgent thing now – and France has tabled its own resolution – is to make sure that this is discussed and that decisions are taken speedily and upon that fundamental point there is total agreement between the President and I, between France and the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    President Chirac, in the wider area of social policy, are you convinced by the lower rate of unemployment in Britain, that France needs to introduce more flexibility into its labour market to get it higher rate of unemployment down?

    Secondly, you mentioned Eurotunnel. Are you still in favour of prolonging the concession of the Eurotunnel operators in order to ease their financial problems?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first point, yes, I note the positive trends of the results achieved by the British Government on unemployment, of course I note that. I am not entirely certain that these results are due to more or less flexibility. I think they are more the result of the rigorous management over several years of the economy in the United Kingdom, in particular of overcoming the deficit and sound financial management.

    I am convinced that you cannot fight unemployment and bring it down unless you have sound management because that is the only way for real growth. That in itself is not enough of course to bring unemployment down but what it can do is give you the necessary margin of manoeuvre in financial terms to enable measures to bring unemployment down to be more effective.

    As regards flexibility which you have raised, in France we are very committed to a social model that we have. The social benefits that we have and enjoy should not be challenged in our view. I can agree, of course, that we should constantly adapt to new situations but that should not be done by raising any questions about social security and the security of workers on what they have achieved and the benefits they have won in the past.

    What I would say is that we want a European model and we are working for that, we want to have that approach to this issue. Of course, we have a lot to learn from the British on management and the rigorous way in which they have managed the economy which has enabled them to relaunch their economy on firmer ground.

    On Eurotunnel, yes, there is this request for an extension of the concession. Of course, we are aware that that creates problems for the British authorities and so we are not demanding. What we are looking for is a solution and we hope we have one solution or the other. What we want to do is find a solution and look at ways of doing that and I know that the British authorities together with their French colleagues and counterparts are looking seriously to try and find the best possible solution to these difficulties.

    QUESTION:

    President, a question on domestic policy. It has been said you are going to change your Prime Minister. Is that true?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I am not sure that this is a very elegant question to raise in the presence of the British Prime Minister. He is going to ask himself where he has ended up, where he is and you should keep to the subjects of our press conference but I have been told that lots of French journalists have asked this question.

    I am extremely attentive and I am sure nobody would challenge what the French people say. I listen to the French people. I also listen all the time to proposals and suggestions that come from their representatives, politicians, businessmen from all areas and I listen very carefully to them but on the other hand, I am not going to go into this kind of declaration.

    What we need to do is together face up to the serious problems that France has to face in the interests of our people and this should be our foremost concern. Like you, I am aware of the difficulties that our people have, our country is engaged on a difficult exercise, a difficult effort, a thankless task but one that cannot be avoided, to rebuild our economy. We need to restore social cohesion and we are engaged on that and that is the only way to ensure the future security of the French people and of future generations so I will say to you that I have full confidence in the courage and the clearness of vision and the character of the Prime Minister but also of the governing party, and indeed of all the French people to successfully conclude this difficult effort we are engaged upon. Solidarity today, particularly in the majority of people in the government party that supports the government is a moral obligation at this moment in time.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I bring you back to the question of the 48-hour working week and ask you to react to what Mr Chirac said and say what sort of hope you have of actually getting this decision reversed if it does go against you on Tuesday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    At the moment, on the 48-hour week we have the Advocate-General’s opinion which was adverse. We don’t yet have the European Court’s decision which we will get I imagine next week. I hope it will be favourable but if it follows the Advocate-General’s opinion and is unfavourable, then clearly we will seek to reverse it.

    We will seek to reverse it for several reasons. Firstly, we believe it has been brought forward under the wrong treaty head. It has been brought forward under the health and safety element of the treaty so that it can be put through by qualified majority vote. We don’t think that is the appropriate place for decisions that effectively relate to working conditions. We believe firstly that it is in the wrong place in the treaty and once the Social Contract had been agreed it was more relevantly placed there – though it wasn’t put there – and secondly, these are matters predominantly for employer and employees; thirdly, we don’t believe they are in an event a matter for prescriptive judgment from Brussels upon individual nation states so for those reasons we believe it needs to be reversed.

    It is not just what is specifically in the working time directive, it is the principle of the working time directive and the fact that if we were to accept that after a European Court judgment, then we fear that the same treaty head would be used to drive through other pieces of legislation that also ought to come under the Social Contract for which the United Kingdom has an opt-out so if we lose then we will need to seek a change to the treaty and I have made it clear – not recently, I made it clear many months ago – that in those circumstances we would return to our colleagues and we would say we do not think this is appropriate, we do not think that this is in the spirit of what should have been done following the agreement that the United Kingdom had an opt-out on the Social Contract and we will say to our European colleagues that we wish to see this matter dealt with and changed in the intergovernmental conference and that will be a very important matter for us; we will bring it forward and we will expect our European colleagues to respond. They know about my concern for it, I have mentioned it in European Councils before. What I am saying to you today is not in any sense a surprise to the Commission or to any of the heads of government across Europe, they have known for some time how strongly we have felt about this issue and it is a matter of prime importance to us and we will seek the treaty change I referred to

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have said in your article in “Le Monde” that you were a convinced European Everybody knows that if you are a convinced European in your country, in your party you have Euro-sceptics who often give you a hard time of it. Over time, do you think you are going to be able to persuade them to become good Europeans or are things going to remain uncertain over a further period?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have to say the definition of a good European is quite an interesting one and I am not sure that many people would agree precisely what the definition of a good European is. I am a convinced European, I have no doubt whatever that Britain’s role is within Europe but that does not mean that I agree with every aspect of the way in which Europe is developing, indeed I do not and my judgement is that the good European does not gently slide behind his colleagues and say “Well, I don’t like this but I am going to follow the herd!” the good European, if he thinks something is going wrong, sounds the alarm and says so and that is the way in which I see the role of the United Kingdom.

    In areas where we disagree with our colleagues – and there are some – we shall say so, not because the British Government is adopting an anti-European position but because in certain areas the British Government believes the direction in which Europe is going is the wrong direction and if it is the wrong direction I think we have a duty, a responsibility, to say so and to argue our case with our European partners and that is what we will do.

    You referred to people who take a different view, less-convinced Europeans in my party. Well, they exist in every country. If you look at some of the opinion polls across Europe on some great issues at the moment, you will find very sharp divisions among the public in a number of European countries. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, I think it is very important that there is a proper, constructive European debate about the great issues that are immediately in front of us.

    I will try and persuade people both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere across Europe of the substantive nature of our concern firstly to build a Europe that works and secondly to avoid making errors in the construction of Europe that I believe would damage it in the short-term and in the long-term so those are the matters that I debate with my European partners. I don’t do it in a spirit of obstructionism, I don’t do it in a spirit of anti-Europeanism, I debate areas of difference with them where I believe that there is a better way of proceeding for the future and I will continue to do that. Whether I will prevail or not with my European colleagues or indeed with colleagues at home remains to be seen.

    QUESTION (John Kampfner, Financial Times)

    Prime Minister, on EMU what is your reaction to the report of the Commission this week suggesting that twelve countries would qualify for the convergence criteria with the exclusion of Britain? Do you see this as a reasonably fair prediction of what may happen?

    To the President, how do you respond to criticism of the means by which France may well bring itself within the 3 per cent criterion by the use of the transference of France Telecom’s debt? Do you regard that criticism as valid in any respect and how do you also react to the Commission’s report?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may answer first since the first question was directed to me, with great frankness, I don’t recognise your description of the Commission’s report. The Commission set out a range of criteria on the fiscal deficit – we are at present outside the range though we are closing to within the range. There is a range of other particular criteria where some countries are wildly outside the criteria. There are some countries on the debt criteria that are nearly 100 per cent above the criteria with no credible likelihood that they are going to get down to within it for a very long time and if they were to go into a single currency it could only be on the basis of an interpretation that they were moving in the right direction rather than that they had actually got within the strict interpretation of the Maastricht criteria.

    In most of the areas, Britain is in the convergence criteria, where we are hot we are in any event – quite apart from the necessity to get in it for that reason – moving down within those convergence criteria because they are sensible economic policies to follow and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rigorously following them so I believe Britain is moving very rapidly towards the criteria where it would have the option of joining or not joining according to the way it decided at the time.

    I personally would be surprised if by 1st January 1999 anything remotely like twelve nations were to qualify for EMU upon a strict interpretation of the criteria. If the criteria are interpreted liberally, then of course more countries will qualify; if they are interpreted strictly, then I would be very surprised if when we get there there are anything like that number who are able to qualify.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the question that you addressed to me I would like to say that when we prepared our budget we of course consulted French experts, the best in the field, and they said to us that regarding the Telecom debt we could rightly act in the way we did. Of course that is not enough so we submitted the matter for consideration by international experts and then by European Union experts; they all looked at our proposal in great detail and they all confirmed that it was perfectly justifiable and that our budget provisions were completely honest and transparent. I can’t go further than that and I am sure you would not want to put yourself in the place of the most competent European experts.

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bordeaux – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bordeaux, held on Thursday 7th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a crowded agenda today, I wonder if I could ask you first of all about the fight against drugs, that is clearly an area of great Anglo-French cooperation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is, and growing Anglo-French cooperation. It is a matter that both countries feel very strongly about. What we have seen this afternoon in some of the practical cooperation that goes on to try and stop drugs, not just as they pass through our countries but to track them back to source.

    QUESTION:

    Another area of cooperation in Europe is of course Airbus and it does appear that that is one area where European industry in beating American industry?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well European industry has done extremely well. Many people were very cynical when the Airbus Agreement was originally made. But what we have seen is Airbus moving from a very small enterprise into one of the very big players in the aeroplane market and they have just had a spectacular success with an order from the United States and I am absolutely delighted about that.

    QUESTION:

    And does that mean that they could even overtake the mighty Boeing one day?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that is certainly their ambition and I see no reason why they shouldn’t achieve it. They are planning to develop their equivalent of the 747, that will complete their range of aircraft. They are already very big players in the world market and they have plans to become bigger players. It is I think without any doubt the most spectacular example of European collaboration in industry.

    QUESTION:

    Looking ahead to your summit tomorrow, it does appear that Europe once again will dominate. Given that there seem to be very different attitudes in France towards the single currency, and indeed towards the Intergovernmental Conference, do you think it will be a fairly tense session of discussions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good gracious no. I know Jacques Chirac far too well for it to be a tense series of discussions. We have a whole range of areas in the Intergovernmental Conference where we have either the same or very similar views. They are not identical on every issue but it is certainly not going to be tense in any way. We will set out our views and we will discuss the matters that need to be determined, both in terms of the Intergovernmental Conference itself and also of course Economic and Monetary Union.

    QUESTION:

    But there is still this big division on further integration, isn’t there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have different views on some things, that is certainly true, but I think every individual country in Europe has differing views on something or other, I don’t see any great problems with that, we will discuss those differences.

    QUESTION:

    And do you think they understand why Britain wants to participate in a single currency discussion without necessarily committing itself in the end?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t have any doubt about that. Everybody knows there are very serious technical decisions to be taken that are going to affect every country right across Europe and we need to make sure that we get those discussions right. That is as important for France, as it is for the United Kingdom, as it is for Germany. So I think everybody wants to see the fullest collaboration in the discussions.

    QUESTION:

    There is one area I suppose where Britain and France share a former imperial history. There is now great concern about what is happening in the Great Lakes area of Africa. The French have come up with some ideas for international intervention of some kind, is that something which you think Britain, if you are asked about it, will be able to give you a positive answer on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure it is something we will discuss. There are a range of ideas that are now floating about and I think it is moving quite rapidly to the head of the agenda in the United Nations and in most of the leading countries that are involved in the United Nations. There is no doubt about the seriousness of the problem, I think that is self-evident. There is no doubt that in one way or another the international community will be required to help. Quite how and quite what will be necessary is one of the things I expect we will discuss tomorrow.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

  • PMQT – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

    Mr. Garnier: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government’s record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times–the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people’s private property, causing damage and disruption: and the characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?

    Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.

    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.

    Mr. Prescott: Don’t get too excited.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago, before my observations about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people’s natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London’s buses–the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)–has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.

    I want to stand back from the regrettable nature of the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and say that the only reason why no Labour ex-Ministers are in a similar position is that there have been no Labour ex-Ministers in recent memory. However, when there were Labour ex-Ministers, what was Lord Marsh doing–[Hon. Members: “He was a Tory.”] When he was at the Dispatch Box, he was a Labour Minister. He only became a Tory when he realised that we were right and he was wrong. What have Labour Members to say about Edmund Dell, who became head of Guinness? What do they have to say about Lord Varley, the former Energy Secretary? What about Lord Barnett, who is on the boards of a raft of different companies? It is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else–hypocrisy from start to finish.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jessel: As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen’s visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend’s visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.

    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government’s present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.

     

    Q6. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Michael: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.