The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (I) – 22 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in Florence held on Saturday 22nd June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if all he had achieved was a truce in the beef ban dispute].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. We found a way through the difficulties that existed. What we needed was to find a way to ensure that the ban could be progressively lifted on the basis of objective criteria, on the basis of science and not just blocked by our colleagues because there was a strong element of public feeling abroad. We need to deal with this on objective criteria and I think we have now agreed to do that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was still possible the end of the beef ban was no closer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, you see I don’t accept that. The concern that existed before, what we saw when the beef derivatives ban was lifted against the advice of the Commission and the scientists, was a political intrusion into a decision that should have been made on the basis of science. The agreements that we have reached I think will stop that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the ban would start to be lifted in the autumn].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope we will be able to see the beginnings of the lifting of the ban in the early autumn. We are looking precisely at how rapidly we can meet the objective criteria and I would hope to be in a position to give the House of Commons more information on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the ban could take years to lift].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A lot of pessimists have gone on and said it will be years before anything is lifted or it will be years before all of it is lifted. I don’t think that is going to be the case, but we are looking at the objective criteria now, when we have done that we will give out whatever information is available.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Florence – 22 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Florence, held on Saturday 22nd June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, bar getting your deal on beef, is this summit all over apart from the usual shouting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there are quite a few other things still to be determined, but I don’t anticipate any real difficulties on any other issues.

    QUESTION:

    On the jobs question, do you believe that politicians really can do much to create jobs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Essentially business creates jobs, not politicians. But I think the economic policies that politicians follow, whether they place extra burdens on business or not, clearly makes it possible for business to create jobs, or inhibits business in creating jobs. So politicians don’t create them directly, but indirectly their policies have a dramatic effect.

    QUESTION:

    And does that mean you support the proposals on jobs that are going to be discussed here in Florence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some of them yes, I mean some of the proposals, some of those discussions that we had at Essen for example on supply side reforms, I very much support those. Some of the others are I think less worthwhile.

    QUESTION:

    What about the agenda on further European integration and EMU, do you think much progress is going to be made here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think there is going to be any practical progress made here, that is going to be in the negotiations that have now begun and will carry on throughout the next year or so. We have set out our position in a White Paper, and everyone is aware of that, but there will be no decisions made today.

    QUESTION:

    The big arms find that has been made in the Irish Republic, have you been able to have discussions with Mr Bruton here and to take the process forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I spoke to John Bruton about that yesterday, it is extremely good news. It clearly is a very big arms find and very worthwhile and I congratulate the Irish on having achieved it. It also seems that there is now such distaste for Sinn Fein and the IRA that the public are increasingly inclined to give information, and I think that is very helpful.

    QUESTION:

    Does it suggest that the ceasefire is well and truly over?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to understand the psychology of the IRA. They don’t judge matters in the same way that anybody else does. So I think it is very difficult to make a judgment about what they will do. Certainly their actions recently are despicable, there is no other word for it. What they did at Manchester was inhuman. That bomb was left there in a shopping centre, on a day when it could have been expected to have been crowded, and it is astonishing that very large numbers of people were not killed.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to watch the football today, which is the best thing for 30 years?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they certainly played magnificently earlier in the week. I hope the European Council will finish in time to watch the whole match before we leave, I doubt that it will, but I hope to watch the second half before we leave, certainly.

    QUESTION:

    And you wish them the best of luck?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I most certainly do. Like everyone else in England I shall have my fingers crossed for them.

    QUESTION:

    You have said that the non-cooperation policy has shown itself to be successful, does that mean you have got an appetite for blocking now, that you might use this tactic again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were special circumstances, weren’t there? This wasn’t a question where there was just an agreement or a disagreement. This was a question where we had tried for some weeks to make progress, where progress had not been forthcoming, where one nation state was facing a particular problem and did not to me seem to be getting the cooperation from our partners that we should have deserved. But I hope that no such circumstances will arise again.

    QUESTION:

    Some of your fellow Prime Ministers say that this demonstrates the national veto must be limited at the Intergovernmental Conference for all future decision-making. This strengthens their hand, doesn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t because the Intergovernmental Conference is by unanimity. And there is no question of us giving up the national veto. It would not be appropriate for us to do so and I have no intention of doing so.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Florence – 22 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Florence on Saturday 22nd June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, I apologise for the fact the Foreign Secretary isn’t here. He is still representing the United Kingdom in the plenary session that is still continuing.

    Let me just say a word or two about the weekend. I think it has been a very satisfactory weekend both for Europe as a whole and for the United Kingdom. We reached yesterday a satisfactory resolution of the dispute on beef, a resolution that meets the objectives I set out, and now provides a concrete way of moving forward with the ban being lifted in stages, and with each stage firmly based, as we wished it to be, on objective criteria and science. So I am more than content with that. I know what a difficult issue this has been, not just domestically in the United Kingdom, but a very difficult issue as well for some of our European partners. And I am grateful to the Commission and to the Presidency for the work that they put into helping us ensure a satisfactory way forward.

    Over the remainder of the weekend we have made quite a lot of progress in different aspects of European policy. We believe very strongly that the sort of Europe we should be building is a Europe that works as a partnership, a Europe that recognises that there will be no success unless enterprise is given a pride of place in European policies. I think that is gaining ground as a European concept, though not yet universally accepted.

    There was agreement yesterday about the need to improve the performance of Europe as a whole on job creation and competitiveness. And self-evidently, if one looks across Europe, the problems of creating jobs must be amongst the first of the difficulties that we all face.

    There is an increasing recognition of the need for more flexible open markets, the importance of supporting small businesses, precisely because it is from the small business sector that the new jobs will come in the years that lie immediately ahead.

    Some of our partners in Europe prefer to present these policies within their own familiar context of social partnership. Well we have different traditions in the United Kingdom and we have made clear again, unsurprisingly, to our colleagues that the United Kingdom will not be bound into institutional structures of centralised social partnership. We think those would inhibit rather than help businesses and we have reiterated that view this weekend.

    We have also made some progress on developing the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference to reflect the matters we think are of most importance. In the conclusions they specifically refer to the need to review the workings of the European Court of Justice, we strongly welcome that, and to further entrench subsidiarity as a treaty item, that also is very welcome, with a full report on progress at the next summit in Dublin.

    There are other items in the agenda which, to be frank, we are rather less keen on. We made clear in the White Paper on our negotiating position in the IGC that we remain opposed to future extensions of qualified majority voting, for substantial extensions of the power of the European parliament or to the removal of national controls in areas of cooperation like justice and the foreign affairs pillar.

    One other aspect that I think is worth mentioning, is the fact that within the Intergovernmental Conference we will be insisting that changes are made to ensure that the health and safety provisions of the treaty are used for health and safety, and not used more widely to undermine the social chapter opt-out that the United Kingdom agreed with its partners at the Maastricht negotiations. That is a matter of some importance. We reached an agreement on the social chapter opt-out. We cannot accept that agreement being broken by the use of a different treaty head to pursue the same sort of legislation.

    We will also be looking at the Intergovernmental Conference for a resolution of some of the important issues under the Common Fisheries Policy. One very important outcome from our discussion that I very much welcome, was the decision to seek to bring forward a draft treaty text for discussion at Dublin in December. I very much welcome this, and for this reason. I think the sooner we can actually see the substantive detailed points everyone proposes to put in the treaty, the sooner we can get down to genuine debates rather than some of the shadow boxing that occurs in advance of detailed treaty discussion. And I think it would be useful to have that information both for an informed debate across the European Union, and also of course within the United Kingdom about the importance of our arguments on the future development of the Union.

    Let me touch just very briefly on one or two other matters. One important area of our discussions covered justice and home affairs. And we agreed in that discussion to build on our cooperation in the fight against drugs and organised crime, and that follows on from the British joint initiative with France to combat the drugs trade in the Caribbean, so much of the drugs that reach northern Europe come actually from Latin America, using the Caribbean as a staging post.

    We also reached a conclusion on the establishment of Europol that reflected the concern we have had about maintaining the independence of the United Kingdom courts. That of course was the sticking point that caused us to block progress at the Cannes Summit a year or so ago. We have now reached an agreement in the protocol that the UK will not be subject to ECJ jurisdiction in this area. That is a good result and I think it is an illustration, not the only one, but an illustration of how a more flexible approach to Europe will enable us to deal with matters much more satisfactorily in the future.

    We discussed the progress on the enlargement of the European Union and agreed a number of policy declarations on external relations, including former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Russia.

    I think that the Council ended with relationships in good repair across the European Union, and with attention now able to focus on the important issues that lie ahead. We look forward to the debate on those issues. We have set out very clearly the particular vision that we have of the development of the European Union and I look forward to engaging in debate on that in the Intergovernmental Conference and in the two summits that we will have in the second half of this year, both in Dublin, one I think in October, an interim summit in October is likely, and then the usual half-yearly summit in Dublin in the middle of December.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Mr Clarke has said that he sees circumstances in which it would be in Britain’s interest to join monetary union, and also sees circumstances in which it would be in Britain’s interest to be in the first group of countries going into that. Do you agree?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What the Chancellor has done is repeat what he and I have said a hundred times in the past. We have an option to enter – to opt in or opt out. Self-evidently since we have an option to go in or an option to stay out, there is a possibility of exercising both options. That has been exactly the position since the Maastricht Treaty. I don’t know exactly what the Chancellor said but that is precisely the position, it remains that and has been that way for a very long time.

    QUESTION:

    Are there any circumstances in which you would ever envisage employing the tactics of non-cooperation again, or was that just a one-off, never to be repeated?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We faced a unique situation. I cannot recall an occasion in the European Union in the past where on a matter that was of vital national interest for one nation, in this case the United Kingdom, the other 14 members were not actually engaging in cooperative discussion with us. I hope that will not occur again.

    But on this occasion what happened was that we put forward repeated ideas of how we might deal with this, and instead of there being a constructive dialogue about that, in essence people said very interesting, now go away and produce something better. Well I just have to say to you that is no way to treat the United Kingdom, it is no way to treat any member of the European Union. And the second element that led to the policy you refer to was the fact that the European Commission had unanimously recommended the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, the scientists had recommended it and then it was blocked, clearly as a political decision, by not all, but a minority, of our partners. Now that clearly was not a tolerable circumstance. So providing the normal canons of goodwill apply, I would see no need for such a policy again, but of course it is dependent upon the canons of goodwill. Where non-cooperation was not extended to us, we did not extend it to others and that was the genesis of this dispute.

    QUESTION:

    A number of member states have said they are now going to be seeking sanctions which carry out what Dick Spring called serial vetoing in the future, within the context of the IGC. Will you support or oppose that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I am not going to support that. The IGC is agreed by unanimity. I don’t believe that is correct and if there were a proposition of that sort, the United Kingdom would not accept it, it would not accept it whether it was aimed at us, and it would not accept it if it was aimed at any other member state of the European Union either. Each of the members of the European Union is an individual nation state, whether a large one like Germany, France or Britain, or one of the smaller members. And they cannot just, in important areas, be told that they are going to tag on behind the rest of the European Union if it is not in their national interest to do so. So of course I would not agree to anything like that and, in case you ask, neither would I agree to the abolition of the veto.

    QUESTION:

    What is the British position on a possible Europeanisation of NATO, and what is the British position regarding the enlargement of NATO to central European countries and the Russian veto on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are two elements to that question. As far as what you call the Europeanisation of NATO is concerned, well I don’t see that. I do see Europe playing a larger role in NATO using as its arm the Western European Union. I see the Western European Union developing as the European arm of NATO, I think that is now on its way to being established policy and I welcome that. It is time for the big European nations to play a larger role in the sum total of NATO’s commitment and I think that is happening and we have long wished to see that.

    As far as the expansion of NATO is concerned, we are in favour of the expansion of NATO, but I think it has to be done gradually and it has to be done in a non-provocative fashion and I think that is eminently achievable. The expansion of NATO, of course, is a two-way project. Not only does NATO expand its membership but the new members must accept obligations from NATO, it is a two-way street. But I do favour the expansion of NATO, I think it will expand but I think it will do so at a leisurely pace.

    QUESTION (Chris Buckland, Daily Express):

    Do you see any possibility that the next Conservative manifesto will rule out the UK joining a single currency in the lifetime of the next Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out the position, Chris, on a number of occasions and I see no reason to suppose that it is going to change.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

    Listening to your fellow Heads of government in the last 24 hours, I think all of them that have spoken have said Britain could have got a beef deal earlier had it been less tardy in producing an eradication policy and a framework agreement. They also all seem to echo what the Swedish Prime Minister said last night: “The British government will pay a very, very heavy price for what it has done”. How do you react to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As to the second point, if anyone thinks they can threaten us in that fashion they are in for a very nasty shock. Neither do I think that is the view of our European partners, neither do I think that is going to happen. As far as the first part of your question is concerned, I am bound to say in the immortal words used some years ago – they would say that, wouldn’t they. But the reality is that if a deal was available earlier, why was there no cooperation on a deal, why was there 8 weeks with no progress whatsoever and only progress latterly after we had imposed the non-cooperation policy? I didn’t do that lightly, it isn’t in my nature to go out and lightly confront unless there was a reason for doing so. And there was a reason for doing so. There was a reason because we were not getting the sort of cooperation we were entitled to from our European partners, and there was a reason for doing so because the people who ought not to be forgotten in this dispute are also the 650,000 people in the British beef industry who needed to know what was going to happen to the future of their livelihoods. And for those reasons it was necessary to reach a constructive debate. We were not reaching a constructive debate. I sought another method of ensuring we got one and I am delighted to say we have.

    But as to suggestions that there are going to be reciprocal measures – well, nonsense.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] price of staying in the government, the non-cooperation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You do ask some preposterous questions.

  • 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.