The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (III) – 21 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in Florence held on Friday 21st June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there had been a successful conclusions to the talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a rational conclusion, it is a rational common sense conclusion to a problem faced right the way across Europe. I think that is the way everyone will see it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if normal diplomacy would have brought the same result].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I self-evidently didn’t gain it by normal diplomacy. In the first eight weeks of this crisis we made no progress. In the last four weeks of this crisis we have produced an eradication plan that is accepted by everyone, we have now got a framework document, not just agreed by the Commission but promoted by the Commission and agreed by all our European partners. So self-evidently, we have now made the progress that we needed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he acted fairly in his non-cooperation policy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I defended the fact that in our judgement Britain was not being treated fairly over this matter. I think it is worth recalling precisely why we acted as we did. Firstly, we have repeatedly brought forward ideas about how we might deal with this problem, only to have them rebuffed, not good enough, try again.

    We wanted a constructive discussion, we were not getting it. And secondly, when we had reached an agreement with the Commission, the Commission unanimously recommended that the ban was lifted on beef derivatives, the scientists said it should be lifted, but some of our colleagues voted against that lifting. So I think there was some reason for us to react as we did. But now that is behind us. We have moved forward faster and more comprehensively than anybody imagined, and now we have got a deal that enables things to return to normal.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what stopped other countries using the same tactics against Britain in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t think of an occasion when one nation faced a national problem like the BSE crisis in the United Kingdom and the other fourteen were not engaged in rational discussion with them. I hope that circumstance will not occur again. It did occur, it is now behind us. So if that doesn’t occur again then there would self-evidently be no need for a response similar to the one that Britain has made recently.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it had damaged the EU – British relationship].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You mustn’t be too concerned about a few people who are grumpy. Here we have a collection of nation states, each fighting for its own national interest. That is our responsibility. If occasionally we upset people by fighting for the British national interest, well others occasionally upset Britain by fighting for their national interest, that is in the nature of the way the European Union works.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could persuade the Euro-sceptics to support this deal].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the right deal, this is the right deal, this is a deal that is rational, it is based on common sense and it is what is necessary for the future of agriculture. What would have been appalling for agriculture would be for us to drift on for a very long time without having put in place the building blocks that will eventually get the whole of this ban lifted. That would have been no good for the farmer, no good for British agriculture. This deal is right in principle and I will be able to go back to the House of Commons and recommend it to the House of Commons with complete confidence.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (II) – 21 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in Florence held on Friday 21st June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the deal on the ban on British beef had been worth the non-cooperation policy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are not pieces of paper, they are a deal that is important for the British agricultural industry and the beef industry. 650,000 people work in that industry. Their future depended upon us reaching a satisfactory deal, I emphasise satisfactory deal, with our European partners as speedily as possible. That is what we have done. That was the point that was at issue.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he should have conceded more ground earlier to gain the same deal].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I could have done, I would have done. I think you know the history of this. We repeatedly approached our European partner with proposals, they repeatedly looked at those proposals and broadly said well very interesting, now go away and bring back something better. Well that is no way to treat the United Kingdom and I was not prepared to have the United Kingdom treated that way. And then when we produced, with the full support of Commission, a proposal to have the beef derivatives ban lifted, with the support of the Commission, with the support of the scientists, some of the member states voted against it – against the science, against the Commission. The only way to move this forward was to make sure that it had some big push, some real imperative towards a conclusion. That is what we provided, that is what we have got.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if some Commission officials had said the deal with just a fig leaf].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Come, come, come. I daresay there are lots of people who would like to hide the fact that we have managed to solve a very difficult problem and made progress. I will just make the point very simply to you. In eight weeks after this happened we made no progress whatsoever, none to help the British agricultural industry. It just, if I may use the term, got locked, no progress. In the four weeks since then we have not only made good progress, we have got an eradication plan unanimously accepted by the Standing Veterinary Committee, we have got a framework plan recognised and accepted by the Commission, we have now had that accepted by all our partners and we are on our way towards a resolution of this whole dispute. That has happened in the last four weeks. And none of the government’s opponents imagined for one second that that could be done so comprehensively in that timescale.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (I) – 21 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in Florence held on Friday 21st June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As a matter of fact we have made great progress on that and as orders come up, and I am sure will, they will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. That has been announced by the Presidency and agreed by the European Council this morning. In addition to that, of course, this matter is now before the European Court, it was before the Court a few days ago and it is very probable that we will get an interim judgement within seven to ten days so that matter will speedily go away.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if relations with the European Union had been restored and if the country was back in usual negotiations].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, of course we are. These things happen. In a community of nations like the European Union, there are going to be squabbles from time to time. This has been a squabble, we had something that we had to sort out, it wasn’t something that could have waited, it was necessary to bring it to a speedy and rapid conclusion. That is what we have done. In the eight weeks after this affair began, no progress was made. In the last four weeks we have made a great deal of progress, we have agreed a framework document, we have agreed an eradication plan, we have agreed how we are going to proceed, we have made a lot of progress and I think that is very satisfactory all round.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban – 20 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Thursday 20th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Florence Summit had been a defeat].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that’s remotely true. Throughout this whole exercise we have been trying to find a deal that is right for British agriculture so that we can get the ban lifted and get British meat, which should never have been banned in the first place, exported right the way around the world. Now we’ve made much more progress on that over the last few weeks. At the outset, there was no likelihood that we were going to get a swift agreement, we are now getting a swift agreement. And the difference, of course, between the Government’s position and that of the Opposition is that we have to take action in the interests of the British agricultural industry. All they have to do is to try and make party political points, and frankly that’s all they’ve done.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why there was no firm programme and no firm dates].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I wish you wouldn’t misquote what was said. Go back and see what was said and then you might wish to withdraw what you’ve just said. When I announced this policy, I said it would end when two things were achieved: firstly, when we had the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives and we have obtained that, and secondly when we had reached a framework that would enable the ban to be lifted. Those were the two objectives I set, not the ones set out by your reporter a few moments ago and not the ones just put to me a second ago.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why that framework wasn’t in place].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So perhaps, well we haven’t got the deal yet! That’s what I’m trying to settle in Florence as I suggest Mr Blair and Mr Ashdown and you wait and see what deal we actually get.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would return from Florence with a date for the timetable].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I said emphatically in the House of Commons this afternoon that I wasn’t certain there would be a deal. But the point about a date is to utterly and totally misunderstand the nature of the problem. In order to get a deal there are certain actions that have to be carried out. Once we have agreed those actions, there are objective criteria for lifting the ban. The timetable is then within the hands of the British Government and the British agricultural industry to try and meet that timescale. So the timescale is in our hands. To say to our partners they must fix some arbitrary date without knowing whether the objective criteria is met, is plainly absurd and that is what we said at the outset and I wish people would stop misrepresenting it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether tens of thousands of cows were being slaughtered to appease the European Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, but that isn’t the case, you see. That’s the mistake that was made by Mr Blair and Mr Ashdown and by others this afternoon. Under the original proposals recommended to us by our own scientists, by SEAC, under what has become known as the 30+ Scheme, the animals that we’re now talking about what have been slaughtered in any event. Nobody has dragged in large numbers of fresh animals. Some of the animals will be slaughtered a little earlier than would otherwise have been the case. They tend to be slaughtered at around 6 and a half years old. By definition, the animals that are now being talked about, those born in 1989-1990 are coming on for 6 and a half years old so they would be slaughtered within a matter of weeks, or a matter of months anyway and that is why it is so absurd of people to say firstly there are lots more animals because they were covered by the 30+ Scheme in any event and secondly that there’s massive extra slaughter because these animals were coming up for slaughter under that scheme anyway and that is the point that the Government’s critics seem not to have grasped.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Europeans would have to eat British beef].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well the point about getting the ban lifted is there’s no justification for not eating British beef, it’s not only British beef that isn’t being eaten at the moment – it’s Italian beef, German beef, French beef, Spanish beef. Because of the way the matter blew up out of all reasonable reckoning in the early part of this crisis, consumers have been frightened off beef. Now the scientists say it’s safe, the World Health Organisation say it’s safe and my interest is to try and reach a deal so that everybody can recognise that it is safe, this absurd publicity disappears and the consumer can begin to have confidence again in beef. There was no reason for the consumer to have lost confidence either here or abroad, and I wish to see it restored. That’s in the interests of Britain, the interests of Europe and in the interests of the world agricultural industry.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Florence – 20 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Florence on Thursday 20th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if a deal is reached, are you convinced it will show that the non-cooperation policy was worth it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I am convinced it would show that. We sought a deal for a long time and we were unable to make progress with our partners, for eight weeks we were unable to make progress. Over the last four weeks we have made progress. I don’t yet know whether we will be able to reach a deal tomorrow. I am here to negotiate. I am here to reach a deal if a satisfactory deal if obtainable. I shan’t know that until the morning. If we can get a deal, we will get a deal; if we can’t, then we will have to continue.

    QUESTION:

    What do you require from this non-cooperation policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter for negotiation with our partners and I will discuss that with them in the morning.

    QUESTION:

    Have you been upset by accusations that you have climbed down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we haven’t, so I am unlikely to be upset by something that frankly is not true. Some of the stories we have seen over the last 24 hours are from Alice in Wonderland, they have no basis in fact whatsoever, they are just complete nonsense.

    QUESTION:

    No question of a climb-down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question of a climb-down and you know that as well as I do, John, absolute nonsense. We have set out our position. We have been in a position and ready to negotiate. I hope we are going to reach a satisfactory agreement. Tomorrow we will find out whether we can or not. I very much hope we can.

    QUESTION:

    Has it been worth the resentment caused in Europe and will you be apologising for the disruption?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t have to be apologising for the disruption. You need to remember how this started. This started because our European partners were not cooperating with the proposals of the Commission and the proposals of the scientists to lift the ban on beef derivatives. It was their non-cooperation that forced the United Kingdom to take the stand that we did. And I think you have to remember why we did it. We did it because I am determined to get a settlement in the interests of the British beef industry. There are 650,000 people engaged in the British beef industry who require us to reach a settlement. Now if a few people are going to complain and gripe about our tactics, well I am afraid that is life and that is politics. What I require is a settlement and I hope we are going to get a settlement over the next day or so. We shall see.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

    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. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ignore advice from the Opposition, who would sign away Britain’s vital interests to some European super-state? When he meets European leaders in Florence tomorrow, will he remind them of Britain’s economic success, and will he continue to fight robustly for Britain’s interests in Europe, in contrast with the Opposition, who would fight for Europe’s interests in Britain?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the principal Opposition party would jeopardise the rebate, undermine the veto and follow policies in Europe which certainly would not add to employment and would damage our position here and in Europe. I confirm that we shall not remotely follow any of those policies. We have a crowded agenda to address at the summit at Florence this weekend–on the intergovernmental conference, unemployment and economic issues–and I hope to get a resolution of the beef dispute.

    Mr. Blair: Under the European Commission proposal, when does the Prime Minister think that the ban on beef will finally be lifted? Obviously, I am asking not for a precise date, but for the approximate time when he now expects it to be lifted.

    The Prime Minister: We do not yet have an agreement on the framework. There is unanimous agreement by the Standing Veterinary Committee on the eradication plan, which is a great step forward. The agreement on the framework document remains to be achieved and I hope to reach an agreement in Florence. I am not certain that I will, but I certainly hope that it will be possible. After then, it will be for us–not the Commission–to determine the dates, as it will depend on the steps that we have to take. I would expect that, provided that we can reach agreement in Florence, we shall begin to see the lifting of the ban in the early autumn, but that will depend on negotiations still to come.

    Mr. Blair: The question is not when it will begin, but when it will end. Perhaps the Prime Minister will confirm the following about the deal. First, there is no date on the deal. Secondly, there are no guarantees; indeed, any part of the ban being lifted has to be referred to a committee which is under no obligation to accept it. Thirdly, he has had to concede extra cattle to be slaughtered, although there is no scientific basis for it. Fourthly, there is no lifting of the third country ban and, fifthly, there is no deal on additional compensation, though we shall be spending billions on it for years to come. If those points are correct, is not calling it a triumph, as some Ministers have today, an utter travesty of the truth?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every aspect of what he has just said. Let me make it clear to him that, but for the action that we have taken, we would be nowhere near the deal that it may be possible to strike this weekend. In the first eight weeks after the ban was imposed, nothing whatever was offered to us by our European partners. In the four weeks since we began a process of non-co-operation, we have reached agreement on the eradication plan and reached agreement with the Commission on a framework. I hope that we shall reach agreement with our partners on a framework to enable us to begin to move towards lifting the ban.

    The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the slaughter of extra animals. No animal that would not have been slaughtered is now to be slaughtered. All those animals would have been caught by the 30-months-plus plan. Almost every one of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman has just made shows a profound misunderstanding of the whole negotiation.

    Mr. Blair: My understanding is based on the European Commission document.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: Then perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question that was put to him: when does he expect the ban finally to be lifted? I suspect that the reason why he will not give us an estimate is that, if he did so, the period would be in years, not months. That is why he does not want to give it. Is not the truth that he is now so desperate to extricate himself from this mess that he will settle for anything? There is humiliation in the deal. There is ignominy in the deal. In fact, it is not a deal at all: it is a rout.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s position is wholly idiotic. Not only that, but now that he is talking in that fashion, he might bear in mind that his hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture supported the ban, against the interests of this country, after it was proposed. First the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports our policy and that we must negotiate an agreement. Then, when we do negotiate an agreement, he changes his position. The fact of the matter is that there would have been no chance of an agreement, but for the policy of non-co-operation that we have followed. We are now within a few hours, with luck, of getting an agreement in Florence–and that is no thanks to the policies of the Opposition, who right from the outset have done all that they can for party advantage, notwithstanding the damage to the British agricultural industry.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers the old cowboy movies that he must have watched in his youth. In that context, if one of our colleagues had gone to Germany and told a German audience that he would never be prepared to see Britain isolated in Europe, and that he would therefore be prepared to give up the veto, but then told a British audience that he would never give up the veto because Britain might have to be isolated in Europe, would my right hon. Friend be justified in saying to that person, “Paleface speak with forked tongue?”

    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany, I at least did not expect him while he was there to attack a policy that he was nominally supporting in this country. But instead, to curry favour with his hosts, he rolls over on his back with his feet in the air.

    Mr. Ashdown: I did not support the Government in the policy of confrontation. Is it not perfectly clear that the Prime Minister, having again marched his troops to the top of the hill in Brussels, is now engaged once more in uselessly marching them back down again? What is the cost of all that folly, the terrible damage to Britain’s influence abroad and to respect for this country?

    There is muddle, confusion and chaos at home, and we are now required to slaughter more animals. The Prime Minister says none, but the National Farmers Union says 66,000. Brussels is to police the scheme; there is no starting date, no timetable, no clear phasing and no binding response from our colleagues. What words will the Prime Minister now use to convince us all that this is the brilliant and decisive victory that he has predicted all along?

    The Prime Minister: Yet again the right hon. Gentleman shows his breathtaking capacity to understand nothing. He is wrong on almost every aspect, as he will discover at the end of the discussions in Florence, when we will have finally dealt with the matter. We would still be waiting for any movement towards the lifting of the ban by Christmas or later, had we followed the policy that he advocated. As it is, we are close to an agreement that will be in the interests of the British agriculture industry. He says that he is interested in the agriculture industry when he is in his constituency, but when he is in the Chamber he just wants to make silly points.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Did my right hon. Friend read the remarks that Mr. Henkel made at the conference attended by the Leader of the Opposition? He said that unemployment in Germany was continuing to increase, whereas in Britain it had fallen by 20 per cent., that the rate of taxes on retained profits in Germany was twice as high as in Britain, and that Britain was the enterprise centre of Europe. Is it not the case that we are doing rather well at cricket, our footballers are playing like heroes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is nearly 80 years old? We are moving towards a position where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, so why let Labour ruin it?

    The Prime Minister: Mr. Henkel, the president of the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, said more than that: he pointed out that we had received 10 times as much investment from outside Europe as Germany had, despite the fact that Germany was a larger economy. What is rather strange is that the celebrated guest at that great meeting where the president of the BDI paid those compliments to the United Kingdom would like to change all the policies that have made this country so successful.

     

    Q2. Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Simpson: Will the Prime Minister comment on his deputy’s claim on “Today” that the culling of a further 65,000 cows amounts to no more than “a handful” of cattle? How does he square that with yesterday’s comment by the Minister of Agriculture that any suggestions of a further cull were completely untrue? Will he give the House and the public two simple assurances: first, that the Government will guarantee full compensation to farmers for the reconstruction of the national herd and, secondly, that a sizeable contribution from Europe will now form a core part of the framework agreement that he has negotiated?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to suggest that 67,000 additional animals are to be slaughtered, That is not remotely the case. Every one of those animals was going to be slaughtered in any event. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered. [Interruption.] One can always tell when the Opposition do not like what they are hearing. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered, so the hon. Gentleman’s question is based on total nonsense.

     

    Q3. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Butler: May I wish my right hon. Friend a most enjoyable weekend break in Florence? So as to ensure that it is enjoyable also for Conservative Members, will he make it clear from the start, and again at the end, that he will accept no weakening of the British veto and no extension of qualified majority voting?

    The Prime Minister: Weekends in Florence are always enjoyable, as I have learnt on many occasions in the past. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is a lovely place, and I am looking forward to an enjoyable weekend there. And I can ensure that my hon. Friend enjoys both this and subsequent afternoons by giving him both the assurances for which he asks.

    Mr. Garrett: Why do the Government refuse to support the International Labour Organisation’s convention on home workers when this country has 1.5 million home workers, many thousands of whom earn less than £2 an hour, and many of whom earn less than £1 an hour? These people have no protection or rights under our existing legislation. Does that not show a quite incredible callousness?

    The Prime Minister: Not remotely. A large number of people in this country are in work rather than unemployed precisely because we do not have the sort of legislation that the hon. Gentleman prefers. I happen to take the view that policies, whether the hon. Gentleman likes or dislikes them, are for this House and should not be pushed upon us by bodies such as the ILO.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of his Government’s policy to impose regional government and regional assemblies on the British people, which would mean yet another tier of government, more expense, more bureaucracy and more interference and would be a nightmare for the British taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that regional assemblies would be a total irrelevance, were they to be introduced. They are proposed by the Labour party only because it knows that its plans for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly are untenable unless it moves into this nonsense. The Labour leader is rather confused about this policy. He said on one occasion, “We are not committed to regional assemblies,” and then on another occasion he said that regions should have assemblies. On this issue, not only does he disagree with his colleagues–he disagrees with himself.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Honours

    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of those recommended for honours were civil servants, members of the armed forces and Government employees (a) in each of the two years prior to the changes of 1993 and (b) in each year thereafter.

    The Prime Minister: Figures for civil servants are not available separately. The proportions of state servants 1 awarded honours in the new year and birthday lists of around 1,000 names each, are listed. The number of military awards 2 shows the number of awards in the defence services lists, which are purely military, issued at the same time following recommendations to the Queen by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence:

    Year | Percentage of state servants (1) | Number of military awards(2)

    – ——————————————————————

    1991 | 19 | 533

    1992 | 19 | 527

    1993 | 18 | 475

    1994 | 17 | 424

    1995 | 16 | 320

    1996 | 17 | 315

    (1) Figures are for state servants which include not only civil servants in headquarters, professional and local posts, but also those giving wider state service, for example in the museums and galleries field; to both Houses of Parliament; and as circuit judges.

    (2) The numbers of military awards include members of the regular and reserve forces but exclude special lists for awards in a designated theatre (during the period from 1991 these have included Northern Ireland and the Gulf). Between 1994 and 1996, 56 meritorious awards were taken from the honours lists and were published separately in operational lists.

    Since March 1993, any automatic recognition to staff in particular posts has ceased. Awards for state servants are selected on merit, reflecting service beyond what might normally be expected.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (II) – 19 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 19th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when Britain would end its obstruction policy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will end when I said we would end it at the commencement of this affair. When I initially made the statement in the House of Commons, I did so out of frustration – frustration because the European Union were not cooperating properly with seeking a solution to this problem, and frustration with some member states because despite the fact that the Commission had proposed the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, despite the fact that the scientists recommended it, some nation states voted against it. So it was frustrating that caused me to put it in place. I said at that stage I would lift it when two things had happened: first, when the ban on beef derivatives had been lifted – that has now happened; and second, when we had agreed a framework that would enable us to see how the rest of the ban could be lifted.

    I emphasise a framework enabling it to be lifted, not the completion of all the matters in the framework. I set that out as the goal at the outset of this affair, I hope that we will soon reach that position.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was holding a gun to the heads of other member states for what was a British problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is quite wrong, and I will explain to you why it is quite wrong. When the BSE crisis broke, firstly we began to take very dramatic action. I doubt many of your viewers, watching this programme, realise that we will slaughter one million cows this year. I doubt they understand that. I doubt also they understand the safety measures that we have in place that exist nowhere else in Europe. But it is not as you describe it.

    We put this policy into operation because Europe were not cooperating with us. Despite the science, despite the recommendation of the Commission, Europe voted against lifting the ban on the beef derivatives. Now on the back of that, I wonder what you government would have done, or any other government, if they had the scientists on their side, the European Commission on their side, the World Health Organisation on their side, British scientists on their side, and for reasons unconnected with science, and unconnected with health, some member states voted to retain that ban. I think they would have responded too.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (I) – 19 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 19th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how Europe could regain trust in Britain after the beef crisis as other countries had also suffered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me make a point about beef because you are quite right, the problems with beef have hit countries right the way across the European Union, the beef industry in Italy of course and in other countries across the whole of the European Union. I think it is not so much what the politicians can say, I would hope that the consumers would listen to what bodies like the World Health Organisation say – they say that British beef is safe and by definition Italian beef is safe and so is other beef – and I think it is to people like the World Health Organisation and the scientists that people should listen, and they are overwhelmingly of the view that it is safe to eat beef, both British beef and other beef, and it is a great sadness that consumer confidence has been damaged by some of the publicity there has been over recent months and that is doing great damage to beef industries across Europe. I would like to see that confidence restored speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if thought agreement could be reached in Florence].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is certainly reachable. The framework document that has been published is a very good basis for an agreement and although I can’t be certain at this moment there will be an agreement, I think it is certainly possible that we will get an agreement. If there is goodwill on both sides and if people are prepared to look at the rationale for the decisions they take and look at the science, then I think there is a distinct possibility that we will get an agreement in Florence and I hope that will prove to be the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Italian Government had run out of patience with the British].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think public opinion across Europe should ask themselves why did the British do this? The British don’t normally do that. What was it that drove Britain to decide on a non-cooperation policy? I will tell you what it was.

    It was the non-cooperation of many of our partners in Europe and I will tell you exactly what happened. After the beef crisis broke, we came forward time and time again with plans to proceed and end the crisis and our partners in Europe did not sit down and talk to us about this; they said “Very interesting, now go away and come back with something better”. That is no way to treat a nation like Britain. Then, when we had got the agreement of the Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Commission to lift the ban on beef derivatives, supported by the Commission, supported by the scientists, a number of our European partners voted against that recommendation, against the Commission and against science. There was no logic in that.

    I think people who say Britain has behaved unreasonable should ask themselves what would their government have done if the rest of Europe had continued to ban an export that the scientists said was safe and that the Commission said was safe and that the ban could be lifted. They wouldn’t have wanted to accept that and neither could I because our partners were not behaving cooperatively, they were not behaving reasonable in that instance and we needed to ensure that there was a proper, rational debate. That was the reason for the British policy and I said then that when we have that rational debate, when the ban on the beef derivatives is lifted – and that has now been lifted – and when we have a framework and agreement about how to tackle this crisis then we can end our non-cooperation policy.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would leave the European Community if no agreement was reached at Florence].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. This is an important issue this question of beef, right the way across Europe it is important and it is important to Britain, there are 650,000 people whose jobs depend on the beef industry but there is a very wide range of issues in Europe. Britain is a member of the European Union, we have been a member of the European Union for a very long time and we are going to stay as a member of the European Union. We will put forward our own distinctive ideas about how the Union will develop, sometimes our partners may agree with those, sometimes they may not, but we are in the European Union and we intend to stay in the European Union.