The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Halifax (I) – 16 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Halifax on Friday 16th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, on the economic front, what has this G7 summit achieved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a thick stub of real substance in the midst of what has been agreed over the last couple of days. If I can just take some of the things at random. I think that the proposals at the United Nations, to have a look at the reform of the United Nations and reform of the way the financial institutions operate, in essence to try to encapsulate it, to try and make sure there are no more Mexicos, with all the knock-on effects that that had, I think that is a real area of substance. The agreement to have a second Jobs Conference, similar to the one in Detroit, and to concentrate particularly on a whole series of remedies that the UK have proposed in the past, that the OECD have set out, I think that is a very substantial move forward. I think there are a range of areas like that, I will take them individually in questions rather than run through them all, you have seen the communique, but I think there is a lot in it.

    QUESTION:

    Hasn’t the G7 been hijacked by the tactics of the Bosnian Muslims?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think so. Clearly we have spent a lot of time discussing what was happening in Bosnia, a matter of very great concern to us, but to say it was hijacked I think is wrong because the substance is still there, the agreements have still been made and as a result of that things will occur that otherwise would not have done. So no it has not been hijacked but it is a very important matter.

    QUESTION:

    What about this disagreement you have had with Chancellor Kohl over the Brent Spar, how seriously damaging to you think that is to your relationship?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Even the best of friends don’t agree on every occasion. On this occasion we have taken a different view of this particular matter. I think that the way of disposing of Brent Spar is in accordance with international agreements, it is in accordance with safety, it is in accordance with logic. I think the companies are right to dispose of Brent Spar in this way and I have indicated that that is my view.

    QUESTION:

    They have decided to delay the sinking of it, do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a matter for me. I am not aware that that is the case, no doubt that is being discussed elsewhere. But I have been asked whether I agree that that is a credible way to dispose of the Brent Spar. I do. Indeed if you consider the environmental alternatives, to try and bring the Brent Spar, something of that size, in shore, with the danger of it breaking up as it came in shore, might well be a greater environmental danger and I think people really need to consider that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there will be a total pull-out on Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in favour of a total pull-out. At the moment events are still developing in and around Sarajevo, and conceivably elsewhere. But at the moment I am not in favour of a total pull-out and I simply reiterate the point I have made many times before, if the United Nations Protection Forces were forced to come out of Bosnia as a whole I believe that would be disastrous, it could happen but I believe that would be disastrous. It would open up the way to a much wider and more bitter level of fighting than anything we have seen before, a lot of people would undoubtedly be killed. And anyone who believes that the major Western states could just walk away from Bosnia with having no interest to what the wider impact of that war would be, I think is very badly mistaken. Whether we like it or not, all of us have an interest there, I hope we can stay and minimise the fighting, minimise the killing and seek a political settlement, with UNPROFOR remaining in Bosnia. But even if events conspire to force them out, we would still have to retain an interest in it and I think a military interest in it as well.

    QUESTION:

    Are you pleased that Mr Portillo and Mr Heseltine have both backed you today as both Party leader and Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been here, I have no idea what has been happening as far as that is concerned at home. I have been here looking at the agenda we have been discussing, we have been discussing Russia and a whole range of other things and I certainly have not had my mind on that.

    QUESTION:

    The 1922 Committee say that you need to sharpen up your act, whatever that means, is there anything you think the government can do to achieve that and do you think you will still be leader of the Conservative Party after this November?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take those points in the round. If the events of the last week have persuaded people that I set out a course some time ago, that I believe that to be the right course and that I am not going to be pushed off that course, then perhaps the events of the last week have served some good purpose. I have set out a course, I do believe it is the right course, it is a long term course, it is sensible, it is pragmatic, it has been carefully thought through and it is not going to be changed. But if anybody wants to know where we are going, we are going in the direction I have set out and I have no intention of moving away from it. I hope that is clear enough for you. OK?!

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Canadian Prime Minister – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Jean Chretien, held in Halifax on Thursday 15th June 1995.

    MR CHRETIEN:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we had a bilateral meeting. In one hour we will have our dinner with all the leaders of the G7 and I was delighted to receive Prime Minister Major, we had a very good discussion, as usual.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you tell us your views on Canada’s participation in the Rapid Development Force, at this point what is holding back a decision?

    MR CHRETIEN:

    I discussed the problem with Prime Minister Major, we are still reviewing the situation and we have not made a decision. But I was interested to have the views of Prime Minister Major on that and he gave me his view.

    QUESTION:

    The specific issues that you wanted to have cleared up?

    MR CHRETIEN:

    We have made our contribution since the beginning there and we are very far away from the situation and the question for us is as we cannot participate with a big number, is it important for us to go with what I call a [indistinct] extremely important share of the operation.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add something to that last question, if I may. I don’t know what decision the government will make in Canada on this issue and I know that they have got that under active consideration. But I think what people ought to bear in mind is the tremendous contribution that Canada have made right from the start of this enterprise. There are very few countries around the world that when the United Nations has needed people in difficult spots, that have provided them as readily, as freely and as courageously as Canada. So I think Canada’s record on that is very good, whatever they made decide on this occasion.

    QUESTION:

    We are not talking about another peace-keeping operation here, we are talking about a Rapid Reaction Force, you are willing to contribute forces, would you like to see Canada do the same?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have just indicated, Canada has got a very proud record in contributing to the United Nations. But the Rapid Reaction Corps is not there to make war, nobody should be under that impression, that is not the purpose of the Rapid Reaction Corps. It is going to be there to add to the security of the troops who are there, it will be there to help people if they run into difficulties, whether they may be British, Canadian or whomsoever. But I am sure the government will make its own decision in due course.

    QUESTION:

    [In French].

    MR CHRETIEN:

    [In French].

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Halifax – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Halifax on Thursday 15th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what are your objectives at this summit? Are you going to reform every other institution but yourselves?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are going to look at reform in a number of areas, quite how far we will get I think it is impossible to say. But we committed ourselves last year to having a look at some of the ways in which the United Nations can reform. I don’t think you can expect everything should be turned upside down, that is not the business we are in, but I think there is some progress we can make. And I think we will want to look also at employment prospects across the Western world. There are a whole range of matters like that but we will deal with those later.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor Kohl is concerned about the dumping of the Brent Spar oil platform, I think he is going to talk to you about it, is there a chance you will change your views on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am always happy to talk to Chancellor Kohl about any matter, but so far as I am aware the disposal of the Brent Spar is in accordance with international law, there are agreements about that, those agreements have been met, that is the way it is going to be disposed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Lord Justice Scott over the evidence he gave to the inquiry into arms for Iraq; on what dates the communications were sent to him; and what were the dates of his replies.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 12 June 1995, Official Report, column 373.

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on matters related to the Scott inquiry; if a dedicated unit has been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Within the Cabinet Office, the number of civil servants working exclusively on matters relating to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry is five, all of whom are members of a dedicated unit. The cost of the unit since December 1992 has been approximately £400,000.

     

    Former Prime Ministers (Payments)

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what payments are available to former Prime Ministers; which of these cease immediately upon their death; which are phased out or continued for a fixed or indefinite period to allow their bereaved spouses to deal with duties following their death; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, former Prime Ministers are entitled to receive payment from the Consolidated Fund of half of the salary payable in respect of the office of the Prime Minister at the time of leaving office. This Act also increased the pensions of then former Prime Ministers to an amount equal to the new pension entitlement of the office of that time.

    Payments cease on death, subject to arrangements for spouses and children based largely on the parliamentary pension scheme. On 1 April 1991, an allowance was introduced to assist former Prime Ministers with the continuing heavy burden of office and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life. The allowance is similar in purpose and amount to the parliamentary office costs allowance but is paid in respect of public and not parliamentary duties. It ceases immediately on death, but a sum equal to one third of the annual amount is made available to the executors of the will to assist with the costs of winding up any office organisation.

     

    Terrorist Prisoners

    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that no terrorist prisoners will be given special treatment in respect of early release; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have already stated that prisoners convicted of terrorist offences are not political prisoners and must expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law.

     

    Royal Family (Official Engagements)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the official engagements programmes of members of the royal family who receive funds from the civil list.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what advice is issued to Ministers by him and/or the Cabinet Office in respect of answering written questions tabled by right hon. and hon. Members which directly relate, appear to relate or which could be construed to relate, to their declared financial interests; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have no reason to believe that guidance is necessary on this matter.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 271, regarding parliamentary questions, if he will list the dates on which his answers were subsequently clarified by means of written questions.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter of public record.

  • PMQT – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Canada attending the G7 conference.

    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the release of the remaining members of the Welch Fusiliers and of the RAF flight lieutenant by the Bosnian Serbs shows clearly that the Government’s robust response to the taking of the hostages was the right one? Does he further agree that we now have an opportunity to reassess how our diplomatic and military efforts in Bosnia can best be taken forward?

    Mr. Newton: The whole House will want to join in my hon. Friend’s welcome of the release of nearly all of the remaining hostages, including the British ones, and it is essential in our view that the other 26 are released immediately. My hon. Friend was right to say that the Government’s policy has been vindicated. Indeed, by standing firm, the whole international community has shown that it will not submit to blackmail and terrorism of that kind. I share the view implicit in my hon. Friend’s remarks that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Leader of the House think that it is really wise for the Prime Minister to be out of the country at this time?

    Mr. Newton: At a time when it is widely acknowledged throughout the international community that this country’s economic performance in growth, increasing investment, improving our trade performance, keeping inflation down and reducing unemployment makes it a world leader in that respect, it is quite right that my right hon. Friend should be sharing our experience with our partners in the G7.

    Mr. Prescott: With Baroness Thatcher making it clear that the Prime Minister is not up to the job, the President of the Board of Trade professing loyalty while preparing to take over the Prime Minister’s job and the Chancellor attacking his Tory critics as right-wing xenophobes, is not it obvious that the Tory party is in a state of civil war and, like the Prime Minister, is clearly unfit to govern this country?

    Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that–against the background of the account of our successful economic policies which I have just given–he will believe anything. He might also explain why his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took the risk of letting him ask questions from the Dispatch Box today.

    [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms reintroduced democracy into the Labour movement? Will he therefore ask the committee considering the Nolan report whether the 165 Members of the parliamentary Labour party who are sponsored by trade unions will resign if the long-overdue reform of the trade union block vote does not go ahead? In particular, if the Transport and General Workers Union gives that reform the order of the sharp elbow, will the Leader of the Opposition sever all his links with that union?

    Mr. Newton: I am not quite in a position to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because the committee to which he refers has not yet met and, therefore, has not made a decision about who should be its chairman. In one way or another, however, I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s request is drawn to the committee’s attention. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will draw the second half of my hon. Friend’s question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Ashdown: Is not it absolutely clear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement last night that, when it comes to a policy on inflation, the Government’s policy is very clear–a target is a target, but only so long as it does not get in the way of a tax cut?

    Mr. Newton: What is clear from my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech last night is that the Government’s commitment to low inflation remains absolutely unshakeable and clear and that the commitment to low inflation is part of a range of policies, which I have already described and which will make it possible for us to consider tax cuts in due course when it is appropriate and responsible to do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s further fall in unemployment, which is down for the 21st month in a row and down 500,000 in the past two years? Does he agree that it is not coincidence, but the result of the Government’s policies and that if we had a guaranteed minimum wage as the Labour party suggests–it is no good the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) looking glum as he has admitted this–there would be a shake-out of jobs and any silly fool knows that? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of Britain, that policy must be reversed?

    Mr. Newton: Although it is sometimes difficult to glean from the observations of the Opposition, I imagine that the whole House will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 350,000 in the past year and, indeed, that employment has grown by more than 170,000 in the year to March. I see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) giggling in some way– it is especially ironic that, not so long ago, he forecast that unemployment would go on rising month in and month out. No doubt he will be reassessing his forecasting methods. At the same time, he might reassess policies such as the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would certainly push things in the other direction.

    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House a question, of which I gave the Prime Minister notice on Tuesday; will he comment on the tragic events in Bradford at the weekend? In condemning without reservation those who commit serious criminal damage, does the Leader of the House share my deep concern about the large number of very young people who are so deeply angry, disaffected and alienated, not only in Bradford but in many other inner cities throughout the country? Will he support an independent public inquiry to establish what happened in Bradford– [Interruption.] If the House–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point as I have other questioners to call.

    Mr. Madden: But this is a serious matter to the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman support an independent public inquiry, which can identify the causes of the serious public disorder that took place in Bradford at the weekend and draw attention to the action that can be taken by all public agencies, including the Government, to bring back hope to young people, their parents and local communities?

    Mr. Newton: First, I am grateful, as everyone in the House will be, for the hon. Gentleman’s initial acknowledgement that, whatever arguments he or anyone else cares to adduce, we all agree that there can be no excuse for the kind of behaviour that we saw in Bradford at the weekend.

    So far as the inquiries are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising the investigation of a number of complaints made against the police during the weekend. That authority is independent and will do a thorough job. The work will be undertaken by officers from another force–

    Mr. Madden indicated assent.

    Mr. Newton: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that. I think that that is the appropriate action to take.

    As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I am glad to know that discussions are now taking place between the police and members of the Asian community in Bradford. That is the way to explore other problems.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen a shred of evidence that suggests that people in this country want more government rather than less? Is he aware that my constituents in High Peak would be horrified at the prospect of another tier of regional government based perhaps 100 miles away in Leicestershire? Is not it time for those people who advocate such a policy to admit that what they are really saying is that we should have more bureaucracy, more waste, more remoteness and more taxes?

    Mr. Newton: Labour’s plans for regional government would certainly end up simply sucking responsibility away from many existing councils that are closer to the people whom they represent. As one of Labour’s think tanks made clear yesterday, English regions would be “essentially artificial constructs”, which is true of more or less the whole of Labour’s policy in that area.

    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger, not just in Britain but on the continent, about the plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea, at a spot not more than 150 miles from my constituency? Is not it a disgrace that Shell should have tried to hide the true costs of recycling the oil platform on land? Is not it time that the Government intervened to halt the tow of the Brent Spar and allow a proper examination of the true benefits of recycling on land, which would be better for the environment and for jobs?

    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are following the principle of disposal on a case-by-case basis. In the Government’s view, the deep-sea disposal of Brent Spar is consistent with the UK’s international commitment, and all necessary approvals and consents have been obtained. It is also the Government’s view that it is the best practicable environmental option available.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister’s attention to last week’s report by the Social Security Select Committee into the growth of social security, which vindicates the Government’s view that the continuing growth of social security spending is a cause for concern? Is it not time that we tackled that problem? Is not the test of the Opposition whether they start to support those reforms, otherwise they betray the fact that they have no commitment to dealing with the growth of public expenditure?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The increase in social security expenditure in its various forms, under various pressures including demographic trends, is a matter of concern throughout the western world and perhaps beyond. Against that background, it has been absolutely right for my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the social security system to ensure that the bill is constrained while at the same time meeting proper priorities. That is what he seeks to do and it deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether, while considering what to do about the damage that his Government have caused to home owners with negative equity, he will consider the misery caused by the removal of mortgage interest relief to those who are unemployed and the damage caused to those who need social housing by the £600 million of cuts to housing associations?

    Mr. Newton: I shall always draw the hon. Lady’s questions to the attention of my right hon. Friends. However, she might have referred to the fact that negative equity and repossessions are sharply down since the 1991 -92 peak, and that average mortgage payments have fallen by £130 a month since October 1990. On the hon. Lady’s first point, a survey has shown that two thirds of lenders intend to buy block protection in the area to which she referred, and the majority of those, including the Skipton building society, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week, intend to make no charge.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the county of Gloucestershire, under the profligate Lib-Lab pact local government, the schoolchildren are being cruelly misused? Is he aware that, as a result of the historic overspending in Gloucestershire, the county council has decided to cut spending on education? Is he further aware that some of us are tired of being a whipping boy for Lib-Lab extravagance, and that it is time that we considered lifting the cap on local authority expenditure?

    Mr. Newton: I see that it has been reported in some parts of the press that the Leader of the Opposition has managed to persuade the Labour councillors of Mid-Glamorgan to reduce their demands for increased allowances from the exorbitant to the extortionate. I hope that he might now use his influence with some other Labour local authorities to persuade them to pursue sensible and proper policies.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information (a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally and (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the appointments which he is specifically required and/or able to make by virtue of his office; and if he will list those appointments which arise during the next 12 months; and if he will list the name, age, expected time commitment, place of residence, current or previous occupation and salary, honorarium, allowance or payment for each post; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A list of the appointments to public bodies which I am able to make as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury is available in the Library of the House. It is not possible to know all those appointments which will arise in the next 12 months. The details requested for each post are not available.

     

    Director General of Gas Supply

    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister what action he intends to take to resist excessive pay demands from those who serve the public; and if he will make a statement on the recent pay claim from the Director General of Ofgas.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 13 June, Official Report, columns 451-52.

     

    Government Property

    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister how many houses and flats are owned by Government departments; and how many of these are currently empty.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Up-to-date information is being calculated and will be published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in due course.

     

    Scott Report

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers, former Ministers or civil servants have sought independent legal advice in assisting their response to draft extracts from Sir Richard Scott’s report; in each case from whom the advice has been sought; and what limit has been placed on payment for such advice from public funds.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Sir Richard Scott has requested that all those in receipt of extracts from his draft report should hold this material in confidence. The Government are not aware of the identity of all the recipients and, in accordance with the vice-chancellor’s request, would not consider it right to disclose the identity of those recipients of whom it is aware.

    Apart from legal advice from departmental lawyers, legal services have been provided to witnesses to the inquiry by the Treasury Solicitor’s department and by external lawyers. In each case their costs are subject to the approval of the legal advisers to the Departments who are responsible for payment.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Government’s attitude is towards reports that socialist-controlled Essex county council is expecting parents to pay the costs of the transport of their children to grammar schools? Does that not show that, despite the warm words about choice and opportunity, Labour and the alliance in action are as malicious and vindictive as ever? So much for hung councils–so much for new Labour.

    The Prime Minister: The vote by the Lib-Lab pact to deprive grammar school children of free bus passes seems to me to be mean-spirited and petty, and it does damage to the notion that the Labour party stands for choice and opportunity. It seems to show the true face of Labour in local government, and gives a warning that many people would be wise to take on board. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party will ask his local government colleagues to think again on this matter, as he has on other issues.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister still say–as he did three months ago–that it would be folly to close our options on joining a single currency, including in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the Government’s position perfectly clearly before the House on 1 March. I made it clear that we had an opt- out, and that we would decide whether to join when the time for the decision came. We would then decide whether to exercise our opt-out. Nothing has changed.

    Mr. Blair: Nothing has changed? Does that include in the next Parliament–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the matter will come for a decision? He cannot. I just said perfectly clearly that when the matter comes for a decision– [Interruption.] It is perfectly clear–even for the right hon. Gentleman. When the matter comes for a decision, we will decide whether to exercise that opt-out.

    Mr. Blair: Does that include in the next Parliament? Baroness Thatcher got it wrong. The Prime Minister is not the yes, yes man–he is the don’t know, don’t know man. When will he learn to give the lead on this issue, because it is too important to be the plaything either of the rival ambitions in the Cabinet or of the warring factions in his party, of whom increasingly he is the prisoner and not the master?

    The Prime Minister: I have been observing the faces of some of the members of the Labour safeguards committee, who do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on any aspect of his European policy. As for giving a lead, it was I who negotiated the choice that this country and no other country in Europe has, to make the decision that is right and in the interests of this country–whenever the matter may come up, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman twice.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Evans: I am proud to be Welsh and I am also an unashamed, Union Jack-waving Brit. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1235, signed by 75 hon. Members, which shows that the vast majority of people oppose bureaucratic assemblies, and that half the people who say that they will vote for the rabble opposite oppose devolution? Will my right hon. Friend continue his policies to protect and keep this kingdom united, and not sell out the vital interests of this country to sectional and divisive interests, as the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats would do?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Opposition proposals that we have seen on devolution are ill thought out and incomplete. On all the substantial questions, after many years of talking about their policy, the Opposition have made no decision on how to deal with the main questions that arise. If they know the answers, they are keeping quiet and, if they do not, it is about time they produced them, before seeking to inflict such a disastrous policy on the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that I have been a strong supporter of the national lottery from the beginning, but does he realise that there is now growing concern about the way in which it operates, especially the huge profits that Camelot is making? Will he set up a small independent inquiry to examine those profits– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard.

    Miss Hoey: Will the Prime Minister set up a small independent– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing some remarks that are rather derogatory and, I might say, very personal. Miss Hoey has the Floor.

    Miss Hoey: Perhaps the hon. Member concerned would like to repeat those remarks outside.

    Will the Prime Minister agree to set up a small independent inquiry to examine the profits of the national lottery, the fund distribution and the prize distribution? In particular, can such an inquiry consider ways of allowing some revenue funding, so that in my constituency, for example, school sports facilities can stay open during the summer and take children off the streets?

    The Prime Minister: There were several different parts to the hon. Lady’s question. I welcome the support that she has given to the national lottery from the outset, but I do not find any real need for an independent inquiry. The profits are governed by the legislation that the House passed, and the lottery has so far raised well over £600 million for good causes. I should like to consider the distribution between capital and revenue at some time, but it would not be right to do so until we have had rather more experience of the lottery. Although many people are concerned about the size of the prizes when the lottery has been rolled over and there are very large sums indeed, I must tell the House that, whenever that has happened, contributions have risen dramatically, and with them the available funds to be distributed to the five good causes–arts, sport, charities, the millennium fund and heritage- -so I do not think it right to revisit that question at present.

     

    Q4. Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent disturbing reports of fraud and corruption in Hackney council? As independent inquiries appear to be the flavour of the afternoon, is it not now time to set up an independent and open inquiry into the growing number of cases of alleged malpractice and corruption in Labour councils all over the country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the flavour of the afternoon and also about the fact that there seem to be a number of cases where there are difficulties within Labour local authorities. There has been no suggestion from the Labour party of any inquiry, except one by the party behind closed doors. I know that Lord Nolan may be considering investigating local government generally. Personally, I hope that is where he will turn his attentions next, and I hope that the official Opposition will give him their support when he does so.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to reject unequivocally the malicious criticisms made of his record on television last night by Baroness Thatcher, or will he be setting up a committee of inquiry to establish the facts before he decides to take any action?

    The Prime Minister: I worked with my right hon. and noble Friend for many years and I wish her well with her new book. I did not see the broadcast to which the hon. Lady refers, but, if there are misconceptions in it, no doubt in some years to come I shall correct them in my memoirs.

    Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the evidence in the Nolan committee report that, over the past 30 years, average real incomes in Britain rose by 80 per cent.? In the meantime, the pay of Members of Parliament is only back where it was 30 years ago, and it has been below that level throughout the intervening period, while ministerial pay has gone down by 60 per cent. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend refer to the Nolan committee urgently the question of Members’ and Ministers’ pay?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend quotes some extremely telling statistics which are known to many hon. Members. I am not sure whether that is directly a matter for Lord Nolan; however, I shall myself take note of what my right hon. Friend says.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Prime Minister recall agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it is the business of Government to help to reduce inequality? In that context, what is his response to recent reports that some Oxford colleges are warning young people not to bother applying unless their parents are rich enough to fund them? What can he do to prevent Oxbridge again becoming a preserve of the rich? How does he justify Oxbridge colleges getting £2,000 per student in extra top-up tuition fees?

    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the position set out by the hon. Gentleman in the case of Oxbridge or more generally. The reality for all people on low incomes across the country is that the average income of all family types has risen over recent years. Pensioner incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. and average incomes have risen for those who are unemployed and others not in work. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Front Benchers to disagree, but if they cared to study some of the independent research, they would see that it shows that the least well-off have shared in the increase in prosperity. The Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that the standard of living measured by expenditure for the lowest tenth has increased by 14 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned poverty, he might be aware that the bottom income decile– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will be heard in the House. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the Opposition do not like their misconceptions corrected, but they are going to have them corrected none the less. The bottom income decile has experienced improvement in income, improvement in consumer durables and improvement of living standards, year after year.

     

    Q7. Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Bottomley: As my right hon. Friend was not able to watch television last night, may I tell him that one of the subjects covered in an interview with his predecessor was housing? May I suggest to him that people trying to get on to the housing ladder benefit by having low housing prices, relatively low interest rates and the opportunity to join in the property-owning democracy, and will he continue policies directed to that end?

    The Prime Minister: There has been, as my hon. Friend will know, a dramatic increase in home ownership in the past few years, and there was a further increase again last year. As the House should know–although perhaps not everyone will wish to acknowledge it–mortgage payments are about £130 a month lower than they were in October 1990. Perhaps more pertinently, as a proportion of average income they are now at their lowest for a decade. I think that shows very clearly the prospects for increasing home ownership in future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake an investigation into the leaking of sections of the Scott inquiry report; and if he will publish the terms of reference of the investigation; how it will be conducted; and by whom.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 June, Official Report, column 374.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June 1995.

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Competitiveness

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade of intervention by Her Majesty’s Government to improve the non-price competitiveness of British industry at home and overseas are intended to restore the balance between price and non-price competitiveness; and if he will publish his assessment of the likely cost of such intervention on (a) output and (b) employment in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997.

    The Prime Minister: The measures brought forward in the Government’s recent White Paper on competitiveness are designed to improve the overall competitiveness of United Kingdom business and so help raise output and employment.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his speech on 31 May, Official Report, column 1001, how many Ukrainian United Nations peacekeeping soldiers were taken hostage by the Bosnian Government forces on 28 May; how long they were held; when and where they were released; what sanctions or threats were made against the Bosnian Government to secure their release; and on how many other occasions since 1992 UN forces have been taken hostage by the Bosnian Government side.

    The Prime Minister: We understand that six Ukrainian UN personnel were detained by Bosnian Government forces in Gorazde on 28 May. They were released later the same day and returned to their camp. We are not aware of any other occasion when the Bosnian Government took UN peacekeepers hostage.

    We condemn unreservedly all acts of hostage taking by all parties. The Serbs must release the hostages that they hold immediately and unconditionally co-operate with the UN in carrying out its mandate.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he received extracts for comment from Sir Richard Scott’s draft report; on what date comments were submitted to Sir Richard; and what requests have been made by his Department for an extension of the period within which comments should have been made.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have received a draft, or draft extract, of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry report into the sale of arms to Iraq affair.

    The Prime Minister: The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses. In the case of draft extracts in particular, the inquiry has asked that these be treated in the strictest confidence.

    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criteria for determining whether the legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry of (a) Ministers, (b) ex-Ministers and (c) senior civil servants, should be covered by the Government; and if he will list all possible costs incurred or committed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Legal advice is available to witnesses to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry in each of the three categories listed where it is requested by the individual concerned and where their departmental legal adviser or the Treasury solicitor’s department agrees that the request for the provision of such advice is reasonable. The total cost to public funds of providing legal services to witnesses to date is approximately £568,000. This figure includes the costs of legal services provided by the Treasury solicitor’s department and by external lawyers. Some legal advice has also been provided by departmental lawyers as part of their normal duties. The cost of this advice is not quantifiable.

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Prime Minister(1) which civil servants, Government advisers or ministerial advisers, past or present, have sought legal advice from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) which Ministers, past or present, have sought legal advice from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimate cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 9 June 1995]: Details of the costs of legal advice to witnesses to the Scott inquiry are not held centrally nor is the cost of advice in respect of draft conclusions identified separately from the cost of other advice. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would not right to identify the nature of the advice given to particular individuals. This is a matter of confidence between them and their legal advisers.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to establish an inquiry into the leak to the BBC of a provisional draft of the report by Mr. Justice Scott.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 June 1995]: Extracts of the draft report were sent by Sir Richard Scott to a number of people, some of whom are outside Government. Inquiries have been undertaken to establish whether there is any prima facie evidence that there has been an unauthorised disclosure of the information concerned from within Government. On the basis of these inquiries, there is no reason to suppose that the leak came from within Government.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to include the future of British fishing stocks in the agenda for the intergovernmental conference in 1996; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Intergovernmental conferences deal with treaty change rather than adjustment of the content of individual policies. We will of course continue to work for improvements in the operation of the appropriate fora.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 10 June 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in Paris on Saturday 10th June 1995.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank the British foreign and defence journalists who are present here today following our conversations and I would like also to begin by saying it is very pleasant to have such conversations among friends.

    I will not surprise you in saying that our conversations were very cordial and allowed us to raise a certain number of issues. First of all regarding the Cannes Summit preparations and a number of European issues, in particular the preparation to the run-up of the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996. It is true to say that we have a number of approaches and views in common, in particular with respect to the role of the Council and that also of the association of Parliament in contributing to the work being done in Europe. So on those issues we have common approaches and common ground.

    [small section inaudible] and indeed the recent initiatives have been taken in common and, as you know, were approved yesterday by the Fifteen. We request the immediate release and freeing of hostages; we want considerable diplomatic efforts to be deployed and in particular with respect to the appointment of a mediator, Mr Carl Bildt; and in particular also the setting up of the Rapid Reaction Force which will allow for additional support to be given to the peace-keepers in the field. As you know, the Rapid Reaction Force will be made up primarily of British and French troops, to which will be added a Dutch contingent and possibly contingents from two or three other countries.

    With respect to transatlantic relations we were thinking along the same lines, namely the strengthening of Euro-American relations with respect of course for the identities of both sides.

    Regarding bilateral matters, there are no major difficulties there, we both want to strengthen our cooperation in a variety of different fields, in particular the military field.

    With respect to future meetings we have decided that we will meet on 29 July, probably in France, on the occasion of a visit that the Prime Minister will be paying to France at that time. And on 30 October next we will hold the next Franco-British Summit, which will be convened in London, and preceded by a dinner and some evening entertainment on the evening prior to the 30th.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. The President has set out much of the detail of our discussions this morning and I will simply say that I share the views that he has expressed.

    We have had some two hours of talks and my expectation that they would be very wide-ranging and very worthwhile have not been disappointed, they were an excellent exchange.

    Let me turn particularly to the area of Bosnia where we both have a very great concern about present events. Throughout the last three years, Britain and France together have assumed the lion’s share of UNPROFOR’s burden in Bosnia. In Bosnia British troops serve under French command, French Marines and French Legionnaires serve under the British command, and that is the true reality of European defence cooperation. And I would like to pay my one tribute to the 39 French troops who have lost in Bosnia over the last 3 years. We admire what they have done very much and I very much respect also the very brave action of French troops on the bridge at Sarajevo.

    Let me remind you once again precisely why British and French troops are in Bosnia. We are there for humanitarian reasons, we are there to save lives and feed the starving. We are also there for strategic reasons. I believe it is a vital role for British and French troops to help contain a conflict which, if it is not contained, has the potential to ignite the whole of the Balkans.

    That is why, for so long as British troops can carry out their duties without undue risk to their lives, I shall want to see them continue to play their role in UNPROFOR. But let me add also, if the warring parties make it impossible for the United Nations to carry out their mandate, then of course we would have to consider withdrawal. But that is not, emphatically not, our wish.

    Let me make it very plain. If it became necessary for the United Nations Protection Forces to leave, and I repeat I very much hope that will not be the case, but if it were to happen then I think everyone in Bosnia, Serb Croat or Muslim, would suffer as a result of their withdrawal.

    Britain and France are now cooperating very closely indeed, the cooperation is on a daily basis at political level, at military level, at diplomatic level and at other official levels. And we have three immediate tasks. Let me set out all of them;

    – the first of them is to use the reinforcements which both our countries are sending to help UNPROFOR do its job more effectively. And I announced yesterday that the 5,000 troops of our Airmobile Brigade have now been given orders to deploy. They will take effect as soon as some logistical problems with the United Nations are concluded;

    – secondly, let me make it clear that they are not going there as an aggressive force to make war, they are going there to keep the peace. But British troops have always responded robustly if they are attacked and they have responded robustly to provocation. They will continue to do that. The second task is to make clear to the Bosnian Serbs that they need to release all of the hostages unconditionally and they do their cause no good whatsoever by hanging on to them;

    – and the third task of course is to stay focused on the overriding objective and that must remain a negotiated settlement.

    Let me just briefly indicate the other areas that we discussed. We had a very worthwhile exchange on the forthcoming European summit at Cannes. We discussed a range of matters – unemployment, subsidiarity, deregulation, competitiveness and the launch of the Study Group. There were no difficulties of any significance between us in those issues.

    The one area of difference that the President mentioned is an area we are examining and I hope and expect we will reach an agreement before Cannes. We have shared objectives on aid flows and different mechanisms to meet them but we will reach an accommodation about that I hope.

    We found ourselves in agreement on the objectives for the G7 summit at Halifax and similarly we found ourselves in agreement on a range of matters related to transatlantic relationships.

    So let me just say, before we invite your questions, how much I have enjoyed this visit and how much I appreciate the hospitality that has been given. It has been a very good occasion for Britain, a very good occasion for France and I think rather a good occasion for Europe as well.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions. You talked about the convergence of British and French views with respect to the 1996 conference, but I would like to know whether there are no divergences here. In particular I am thinking of the issue of qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers? My second question has to do with the issue of transatlantic relations, I would like to know what you feel about the proposal made, in particular by Sir Leon Brittan, with respect to a transatlantic free trade zone?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Taking your question on voting and the qualified majority system, these are matters that have to do with how to implement the decisions that will be taken at the IGC and I think it is too soon for us to consider them here. In fact we did not talk about such matters, it will be up to our experts to give consideration to these issues. However, having said that I do not expect there to be any difficulties, in fact I would go so far as to say that we will be in agreement on that.

    On your question with respect to the free trade zone mooted by Sir Leon Brittan, anything we feel that can facilitate trade is necessarily positive, is necessary to be supported. France of course is paying great attention to the proper establishment, the getting going of the World Trade Organisation before any free trade measures are taken along the lines of those suggested. That being said on the general principle, there is certainly no objection and no disagreement.

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if I could ask President Chirac, and perhaps a special request for a response in English if that would be all right? Did the two of you agree that the judgement is that the Rapid Response Force is now the last chance for keeping the UNPROFOR troops on the ground in Bosnia? And secondly, what sort of representations will you be planning to make to President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone is in the business of saying the Rapid Reaction Corps is the last chance, that is not the purpose of the Rapid Reaction Corps, the Rapid Reaction Corps is there to facilitate the work that goes on, to protect the troops that are there to enable them to carry out the work that they are doing. It is not there to wage an aggressive war. It is there to protect people, to respond where appropriate and to try and ensure the work that goes on. So, far from being the last chance, it is intended to ensure that the present work continues for some time. The solution to the problems of Bosnia is not going to be found on a battlefield, the solution is going to be found in a political settlement and a search for a political settlement will go on.

    The advent of a Rapid Reaction Corps and the reinforcement of the United Nations troops is a very important event indeed, in keeping the work that is going on on the ground in Bosnia in being and ensuring that it continues. But I don’t think either of us would see that as a last chance at all. We will continue to seek for both the diminution of fighting, the maximum amount of humanitarian aid, the maximum amount of protection for our troops and we will continue to push very hard for a sensible pragmatic political outcome to this dispute.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    We share the same point of view on these matters. The issue of the objectives and aims that have motivated the establishment of this Rapid Reaction Force is something we totally agree on. I note furthermore that neither President Clinton nor President Yeltsin have expressed any reservations about this initiative. You see there was a situation that simply could not last, The UNPROFOR troops have been deployed throughout the territory and they are stretched very thin with relatively limited military means at their disposal and we have seen the emergence and rise of a certain number of phenomena, aggressive phenomena and situations in which these troops have had to face humiliation and that is something we could not accept. The Rapid Reaction Force is a means of ensuring that our troops never again find themselves in a situation whereby they are humiliated. They can fight, they may unfortunately be injured or even sadly killed, but one thing they will never have to face again is humiliation.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, in the light of your discussions this morning and what we have heard from both of you, do you feel that you have a new ally in Paris, particularly on European Union affairs, and that perhaps Britain is not as alone on those affairs as it was in the past.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Paul, if I didn’t know better I would think you were being mischievous. I have always found in my relationship with the French government and with the President of France that both sides to the discussions speak their mind plainly and clearly. We are concerned about the way Europe develops and we are concerned about the individual interests of Britain and France in Europe. I think that was the case with President Mitterrand, I think it is the case now with President Chirac, I have found our discussions this morning very amiable. There are many areas of very great agreement, some of them have been very evident I think in the discussions we have had this morning and in the questions indeed that you have asked this morning. There may be areas at some stage in the future where there are divergent views, as there are between any two countries you care to name in the European Union. But I do think that the relationship between Britain and France is a very ancient relationship. On the really important matters we tend to be on the same side more often than not. I think that is going to remain the case, I cannot promise you we will agree on every issue and neither can President Chirac.

    I can say the relationship is very good and where we differ it will be on matters of political substance, it will not be a matter that will bite deeply and damagingly into the British/French relationship.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would like to add one thing in respect to the construction of Europe. I believe that the construction of Europe, in other words the strengthening, the permanent constant strengthening of the links between European countries, is a sine qua non for the future existence of Europe. Franco-German relations are therefore necessary for the construction of Europe but not in themselves sufficient. We cannot possibly build Europe without Britain. It is therefore essential that we understand the specific problems that Britain faces. And I believe that France can play an important role in finding the necessary impetus and synergy which is necessary to the building of Europe between all European partners and of course in particular France, Germany and Britain.

    QUESTION (James Robbins, BBC):

    President, in the discussions at Cannes on technical preparations for a single currency, should the matter of a name for the single currency be discussed, should a name be decided at a fairly early stage so that European citizens have an idea of what this thing would be called. What would be your preferred choice? The Prime Minister told the House of Commons in London this week that arguably circumstances might never arise in which it would be right for Britain to join the single currency, was that a disappointment to you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first point I would say that we are not on the agenda of the Cannes Summit intending to discuss the name of the single currency. And on your second question, I know and I understand the British analysis and view of the single currency. And there is at least one point on which John Major and myself agree. In other words, the consequences of a single currency, the impact of a single currency which would bring together perhaps 5 or 6 or even 7 Community country members, on the economic situation and status of the Union as a whole, in other words the Union as made up of member states that would not have a single currency, have been insufficiently thought about and insufficiently studied. And therefore it is necessary to examine the situation very objectively and as speedily as possible. I for one of course am in favour of France respecting and upholding the commitments it made under Maastricht and France will of course make all necessary efforts to meet these commitments and indeed meet the terms set for the launching of a single European currency under the Maastricht Treaty and under the provisions of the treaty, in other words by 1st January 1999.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me add just a point about this because this is a matter that the President and I discussed at some length this morning. The unspoken presupposition in much of the early thinking about a single currency was that everybody would be able to join at the same time. But of course the European Union is changing and it is expanding and there are new members coming in, so it is no longer a practical proposition to assume that every member of the European Union would be able to enter a single currency, if it wished to, at the same time. And as the President said, one has to look at these realities and see what they might mean. They raise very important questions, not just for monetary union itself but for other aspects of working of the European Union as a whole. And I personally find it a breath of fresh air that these important matters are finally coming to the fore and will be examined, and I look forward to the examination.