The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Union

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Council (II) – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Council, made during an interview held in Dublin on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was a momentous day now that the design for the Euro banknotes was finalised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly wouldn’t call it that. There was an inevitability at some stage that the EMI were going to produce their banknotes so I think there was nothing particularly momentous about that.

    It is a good thing to have a stability pact. If the Euro is going to proceed, whether Britain is in it or not, it is important for Britain that it is a success and if it is to be a success we need to make sure that the rules are kept so I am delighted the stability pact agreement has been reached.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he still thought the single currency would happen and whether he was still sceptical].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t a question so much of being sceptical, it is a question of whether I believe the economic conditions can be reach in time for it to start in 1999. Everybody likes to profess great certainty that that is going to happen, that is their public position. I have to tell you that is not their private position, many of them are very worried about whether the economic circumstances will be right and they are taking in many countries very dramatic moves to try and put their own economies in order. Whether it can be done in time I believe is very questionable and if the economics are not right then it would be very unwise of them to proceed. No-one can be certain whether they will reach the criteria or not but equally, nobody could confidently predict that they certainly will.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this summit was a moment of truth].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nothing has changed except that we are getting closer to the date on which a decision will have to be made. It is far more true to say that we are facing the moment of truth on some of the decisions in the intergovernmental conference that is expected to conclude in Amsterdam in the summer because there are competing visions of the European Union and some of the decisions that will be taken between now and Amsterdam will determine the nature of the European Union for many years ahead and they will be very difficult decisions; in that for sure a moment of truth is approaching.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he still expected to be Prime Minister in June 1997].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I expect to be here in June and I believe it is important that we maintain a position where the United Kingdom keeps its distinctive view. Some of the propositions that are before members of the European Union at the moment are very unappealing for Britain. I believe that we will have to say no to some of those and I intend to say no to some of them because I don’t believe they are in our interest. We have begun these negotiations, I look forward to concluding them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought other European leaders expected him to be Prime Minister in June 1997].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You must ask them that, they have no more idea than anybody else of what will happen in the British general election but they are having to deal with me now, I expect they will have to deal with me after the general election and I have a whole series of meetings arranged with them in the early months of 1997 to discuss the issues in front of the European conference.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Council (I) – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Council, made during an interview held in Dublin on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if his policy was trying to lower the temperature by appealing to the Euro-sceptics].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t. The reality is that there has been the formal determination again by our colleagues that they wish to go ahead on 1st January 1999 – and they do – and they are trying very hard to reach the circumstances in which they can.

    The real question is not whether they wish to go ahead on 1st January 1999, but whether they will be economically ready to go ahead 1st January 1999 and no-one can be certain about that. I have some doubts about whether they will safely be ready to go ahead in 1999 and I vote those frequently.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the large amount of political will to achieve the single currency timetable and if that would be enough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. It is rather more complicated than that. Certainly, it is a political decision and it is taken by qualified majority vote country by country, that is certainly true but they will need to have the right economic circumstances or the political will will not be there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the political will would disappear].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they would be very unwise to go ahead without the right economic circumstances and certainly very powerful organisations like the Bundesbank would argue very powerfully against going ahead in the wrong economic circumstances. Were they to do so, they would have a weak Euro; if they have a weak Euro, that is going to damage their position very dramatically economically and if they go ahead in the wrong circumstances they are going to get very high structural unemployment in their countries and that was the subject of most of yesterday’s discussion, the high level of unemployment across Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Kenneth Clarke – 13 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, held in Dublin on Friday 13th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just set out one or two observations of what we have been doing today and what now lies ahead in the early months of next year.

    I have now attended around about 15 or 16 of these summits and almost invariably on these occasions the United Kingdom is portrayed as if it was a minority of one or a very small minority. It almost seems to have been the script since the dawn of time. Nonetheless, it may surprise many people the large number of occasions that we seem to get our own way. The United Kingdom perhaps sometimes is the grit in the European oyster, it may not look pretty from the outside but I can tell you it is very effective from the inside, and I think that is going to remain so in the months up to Amsterdam.

    Let me say a few words firstly about the discussion we had on employment this morning. There is an employment text provided by the Presidency. It embraces many of the British ideas, though not every aspect of it is a British idea. But subject to the fact that it is clear that it doesn’t prejudice the text that will be agreed at Amsterdam, subject to the fact that it makes clear that we are going to proceed down the Essen Formula, and subject to the fact that it makes clear that employment matters are for the nation states predominantly and not for Europe, it is probably a text – whilst we don’t agree with every dot and comma of it – that we can live with and that was the substance of what I said this morning.

    This afternoon we have had I think the most substantial discussion that I have yet heard on the substance of the Intergovernmental Conference. For the first time I think a number of the contributions actually got beyond stating rather general positions and looking at some of the specifics of what will need to be decided on the back of the Irish draft treaty text. The draft text, as you know, sets out accurately and very well, the Irish have done a very good job, all the positions taken by member states, both majority positions and minority positions, as the basis of the negotiations still to come. During the discussions, President Chirac suggested that we should throw away pre-prepared briefs and say precisely what we thought about some matters, and I rather agreed with him about that, so I did precisely that, and set out some of the concerns that we have.

    We British are often perceived as having many disputes with our European partners. That isn’t in fact true. We have one substantial dispute with our European partners that spreads into very many areas and keeps reappearing, and that is the fact that there is more than one vision of Europe. At stake in the Intergovernmental Conference is the future direction of policy. Jacques Santer said some time ago the moment of truth is coming, and in terms of the direction of European policy, I agree with him about that. The agreements that will be reached between now and Amsterdam, and probably reached at Amsterdam, will certainly determine the future direction of policy. And I set out to my European colleagues the fact that there is more than one vision of the way the European Union can develop.

    A number of our European colleagues advocate a much more centralist, much more integrationist European Union. Well I understand that view, I respect that view, but I don’t share that view and I made that point clear this afternoon. I would view an integrationist, centralist European Union with some dismay. I don’t think it would be in Britain’s interest and I have repeatedly made that clear. I believe it should be a partnership of nation states with Community competence where it is needed, and in some areas Community competence is needed, but where it is not needed the Community should not reach out take and take competence away from the nation states.

    I dealt also with another argument that frequently appears in European debate, and that is the view that there are only two sorts of the European Union: the one that is inevitability leading to greater political union as well as economic union; and the second view that Europe is only seen as a free trade area. Well that is not Britain’s view. Britain does not see the European Union as simply a free trade area. There are many areas where Britain’s role goes well beyond free trade – the development by consensus of a common foreign and security policy; closer intergovernmental cooperation on crime and drugs and terrorism; a common external trade policy; we need European institutions, the European Court of Justice isn’t always to our taste but it is necessary to ensure common rule is applied right the way across Europe. And I set out these as illustration of the way that Britain actually sees a European Union developing, a European Union that is not integrationist but is neither simply a free trade area.

    The key point in the discussions that lie ahead is one upon which different people have expressed views but nobody has clarified their view very clearly, and that is the question of flexibility. I touched first on this question of flexibility in the Leiden lecture some two years or so ago, and since then as a debate within Europe it has gathered pace. But of course when different Europeans speak of flexibility they often mean quite different things, one from another. Some of the ideas on the table about flexibility could create a core Europe, an inner core Europe that moves ahead on its own. Other proposals would allow action to be taken in the name of the Union with those outside the care having no say in those particular decisions. And I raised those questions and asked whether that was the sort of Europe we really wanted.

    The right sort of flexibility will ensure that those who wish to integrate are not unreasonably frustrated. But it also means that others who do not wish to integrate are not forced into unwished for obligations which are unattractive to their electorates, unappealing to them as governments and which build up resentment across Europe. The wrong sort of flexibility, as I indicated this afternoon, would blow the European Union wide apart, and so that is an area where we need to reflect very carefully. We are still doing so, we have not yet reached final conclusions as to whether the sort of flexibility we advocated is best put in the treaty or dealt with on a case by case basis, this is a very fine judgement and I hope we can reach conclusions on that fairly soon.

    There are aspects in the Presidency document where good progress has been made and where we support very strongly the progress made – on subsidiarity, on a greater role for national parliaments, on improvements to common foreign and security policy to make it more effective, on improving the quality of legislation, on introducing greater openness into the European Union, and some other areas.

    Other areas are less attractive for us. I see no point in writing an employment chapter into the treaty. Declarations of that sort will not create a single job. I see no point in that, though other partners are attracted to it. Neither do I accept the argument that an enlarged European Union would grind to a halt unless it had an extension of majority voting. I do not accept that and I think that is clear to my partners. In the external field a common foreign policy is thoroughly desirable. A majority foreign policy, determined by qualified majority against the wishes of a minority, would not carry weight internationally and frankly is not a sensible way for us to try and conduct our foreign policy. On defence, let us by all means have more cooperation, but we cannot have the Western European Union subordinated to the European Union itself. And on justice and home affairs, Communitisation of justice and home affairs, bringing it under the central pillar, I think would be very damaging indeed and is not something that we could remotely contemplate. Apart from the fact that we think it is wrong, I very much doubt whether any British parliament would ratify a treaty that transferred competence in those sensitive areas to the Community.

    In a few moments we will set out in there a number of areas where there can be more cooperation on justice and home affairs, but I think it has to be cooperation, not a Communitised policy. I re-emphasised our familiar positions on the European Court of Justice, on the Working Time Directive and on the Common Fisheries Policy and I know most people here will be familiar with those and I won’t reiterate them.

    We have not had, though I think many people present perhaps expected it, we have not had a general discussion on Economic and Monetary Union today, but let me say just a word about it in any event. The launching of Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. It will dwarf the earlier decisions that have been reached. The United Kingdom expect that we will meet the Maastricht criteria, that the Protocol that I negotiated at Maastricht gives us the right to decide whether or not we will participate at a time of our choosing. We have not made that decision yet, and nor will we, until we are clear about all the unnecessary issues, because too much of what we need to know is frankly still a mystery, including crucially our assessment of the prospects for real and sustained economic convergence in Europe. There is no point in having the right economic conditions on one particular day unless that is going to be sustained for the future.

    I have made clear before, and I have not changed my mind, of my doubts that enough European Union countries are economically ready to allow a single currency to safely go ahead. A number of European countries have made Herculean efforts to get to those criteria, perhaps they will do so, time will tell, but I myself still have doubts about it. But insisting on a particular timetable for political reasons is not sensible and can end in disaster. The really important matter is that the economic criteria are right. And whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day, and clearly those figures mustn’t be fudged, that is much less important than the degree of genuine economic readiness for such a far reaching step as Economic and Monetary Union. Because once a country is in, the only safety valve for poor economic performance would be higher unemployment and the risks are obvious. Unemployment is already too high across the Community – 1 in 10 adults, 1 in 5 of young people without work – and I don’t think anybody would sensibly wish to gain a political triumph by meeting a particular date for Economic and Monetary Union if it was followed by an economic disaster thereafter because the convergence conditions weren’t correct.

    So we haven’t had the debate on Economic and Monetary Union but my earlier remarks paraphrase what I have had to say in the discussions today and I think they have been very constructive and worthwhile discussions.

    I am afraid that is a rather lengthier statement than I normally make on these occasions, and I see Michael is anticipating I have finished – he is right, I have – but I think it was probably worthwhile to set that out and Ken and I will take any questions you may have.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Phil Murphy, Press Association):

    Could I ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, do you not feel in a way that you might be contributing to a weaker currency by backing the French and persuading the Germans to compromise in setting up the single currency?

    Secondly, Prime Minister, in the light of yesterday’s comments will you be buying the Spice Girls’ Christmas single this year?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    What we have done here is the finance ministers completed through last night the details of the progress so far on stage 3 and there is a report that is going to be attached to the Conclusions showing where we have got to and a small group of us broke away this morning to complete that report and settle the final details and it addressed what you have said.

    Two things are absolutely necessary in our opinion if you are going to go ahead with stage 3 as planned. The first is that it should be run on the basis of proper financial discipline, the convergence criteria must be met. The key thing is the countries must remain convergent because they are dependent upon each other and fiscal weakness by any one country will drive up interest rates and threaten the stability of all of them. For the reason, the report sets out the very strict basis upon which it will be run and on that we were on the German side if you wish to take this rather simplified account of a discussion between fifteen member states.

    The report makes it clear that each member state that goes into economic and monetary union will commit itself to a balanced budget or a surplus budget at various stages in the cycle and the 3 per cent is meant to be a maximum and I personally am very keen on financial discipline amongst any countries that go into a monetary union and you have to have a system to sustain that.

    The second point where we were closer to the French was the system must not be some rigid application of automatic rules; it must be a political system remaining within the control of the finances ministers of those countries who are members so that they will eventually decide whether a country is taking adequate steps to get back towards the convergence that is required in economic and monetary union and will impose penalties as ministers on a country which fails to take effective action to comply with that and if you look at the whole report, that balance has been successfully struck. Indeed, I think we took a very balanced position throughout the entire discussions. We are keen that nothing should be fudged, keen that any countries in economic and monetary union remain convergent and competitive with each other but also keen that we don’t have some incredible inflexible system dependent solely on rules that do not allow the ministers to keep proper control upon it, and that was the key issue that took longest. When you look at the report you will see a lot of other issues have been tackled by the finance ministers in order to keep this process rolling forward.

    I share the Prime Minister’s view that this is all very important, it is going forward. The more we go on, the scale of the task remains very great and I too, as I was saying only a few days ago, am not at all sure that they will make the 1 January 1999 and I continue to believe that getting all these details right matters far more than trying to strike some artificial timetable, but we are there, as we are in this entire Council, contributing very heavily. If you sit alongside the Prime Minister at a council of this type you are sitting alongside one of the three most powerful statesmen in western Europe and we are part of a team that makes a very heavyweight contribution to how these things are taken forward and that is what we have been doing.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure whether that leads me directly on to the Spice Girls but I think I had better answer your question about them and I am sure their support will ginger us up. As to whether I will be buying the single, I have a shrewd suspicion it might be brought for me now!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you accept that it is a bit of a benchmark today for Europe given that the policing of the single currency seems now to be accepted, the structure, and of course the notes have been unveiled. What do you think of the notes and do you not think, given the momentum that now seems to be in play, that despite what the Chancellor says there will be a group of countries signing up on 1 January 1999?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the last point, I am very dubious about that. One of the things we did today was formally agree that the previous target of 1 January 1997 was not going to be met. We had formally to confirm that that wasn’t the case and we did that today.

    I am by no means certain that they will meet the 1 January 1999. There will be a huge effort to try – I agree with that – but the difficulties that there were in agreeing the elements of the stability pact that took a lot of discussion last night and today is but the first of a whole series of detailed decisions that will have to be taken that will be difficult and there is no doubt that unless the economics are right people are going to shy away from the 1 January 1999 so it comes down to a judgement of whether it can safely be done at that date. I am very doubtful whether it can. I can’t be certain, no-one can. I am very doubtful whether it can. I can’t be certain, no-one can. I acknowledge that they will try and meet that date, I am not at all certain that they will be able to meet that date.

    You say “a benchmark day”. Well, an awful lot of decisions still remain to be taken and they are pretty crucial decisions and most crucial in due course will be the assessment not just of whether the criteria are artificially set on a particular day but the assessment as to whether those criteria are substantial over the long term and if there is to be a benchmark day it will be that day when it becomes clear whether the assessment is likely to show that countries could sustain it.

    As far as the notes are concerned, I have had very little time to look at the notes yet. I had sufficient time to notice that they had left Cyprus off the map, Turkey off the map, the Balearic Islands of the map, and to learn that therefore it was only a draft map subject to some revision.

    As far as the national symbol is concerned, I hope that they will decide in due course there is going to be a national symbol – there seems some lack of clarity about that at the moment – and I will look at the notes and study them more carefully. I am not immediately any more enthusiastic about the notes than I was about the name but the important issue is the economics, not the notes.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, the fact that they did agree the notes today, that they reinforced the date, that they have set the rules, did you have a sense that they are, for good or ill, all going off now in one direction and we are rather firmly set in another direction?

    Secondly, given Barnsley, given that they know the political situation in Britain, did you feel any sense – they obviously would not say it because they wouldn’t be so rude – but did you have a feeling that they were regarding you as any kind of a lame duck?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    None whatsoever and that wasn’t remotely the feeling of the meeting and it isn’t the way that these European negotiations are undertaken.

    We have a significant contribution to make to these negotiations. There is no doubt that our European partners are keen to have Britain’s cooperation and participation wherever possible. Where it is appropriate, we are keen to cooperate and participate but it has to be where it is appropriate. There are some areas where we just take a quite different view as to the sort of European Union we need and as I indicated a few moments ago, many of the differences that there seem to be between us and our European partners spring essentially from that fundamental fact that we have a different perception of how the European Union should develop than many of our European partners and I think they understand that and there was no doubt about the seriousness with which they took that in the discussions today.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, could I press you a bit more about the politics of all this because you see, it has been reported on the wires that one of the ministers who listened to you this morning on employment came out and said it was a monologue, not a dialogue, and there are a lot of people saying when they are briefing privately that they regard the British team as a bit of an irrelevance.

    Can I just go on from that and ask you whether what we actually heard at the opening here was another wobble on Europe when we hear the Chancellor talking about “I am not sure whether they will make it before 1999!” and we hear about you talking about the possibility of blowing the Union right apart. It seems as if you are going back in the Teresa Gorman direction a bit.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are talking nonsense, with great respect, Adam. I set out the whole series of areas where we cooperated as well so let us not manufacture an artificial story today, please. Let us stick to the realities!

    As far as the employment debate was concerned this morning, I set out the position that we agreed at Essen. I don’t know which Socialist ministers you were talking to but presumably that Socialist minister agreed at Essen with the supply-side reforms and the supply-side approach to unemployment that I set out again this morning and I wonder what the unemployment level is in that particular minister’s country and whether it is going up or going down – ours is going down because we have followed the formula that was set out in Essen and clearly he didn’t stay for the whole of the debate because he would have heard the support for what I had to say from a number of other people who were actually there.

    As far as your remarks about policy are concerned, I set out very clearly this afternoon what we have said in the past about the British position, what the Chancellor said in the past. We both made the same points about the importance of the economic criteria. I have made the point on more than one occasion in the past that if we get this wrong it will make a material difference. I spoke some days ago about the moment of truth and set out the points I made again this afternoon so there is no change in the position that we have set out in the past. I have re-emphasised it so that it is not mistaken or misreported by anyone anywhere.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I didn’t take part in this afternoon’s discussions, I sat through the discussions on the intergovernmental conference and I heard the debate and could I say I think the Prime Minister firstly made by far the best speech this afternoon and the one that was listened to with more attention than that of any of other minister because of the point of views he was putting and what he was saying about flexibility and about where we are going and the big historic issues that ought to be addressed in this IGC. With great respect, one or two of the others were going into minutiae rather than facing the big issue.

    So far as our role here is concerned, I know it is very dull sitting around at the edge of these councils and you will find stray people from other delegations to gossip to, I find that is one of the problems when I go to council meetings. We are here as one of the big global economies. There are four countries here from the G7 and we are actually here representing one of the four big global-sized economies, we are the strongest performing economic nation here. We have growth, we have falling unemployment, we are competitive with them, we are attracting all the inward investment so when we speak we do actually speak with some clout and the result is therefore we take a very large part in discussions on employment. We are certainly better at creating jobs and certainly better at reducing unemployment than they are and they know that. We take a full part in economic and monetary union because this is our single market, we are drawing investment to participate in it and we have the right to choose whether we are in or out and whether we are in or out we want a Euro-zone that does not disturb our present conditions and creates more stability and more prospects for us so we take a big part in the discussions; you will find that until three in the morning I was taking a very large part in the discussions and I was in the small group that thrashed it all out this morning and what we have put together is wholly consistent with our economic policy – balanced budgets, moving towards surplus in good times, sticking to what are described here at “convergence criteria”, what we call “healthy public finances”, making sure the ministers of finance in charge of all that and keeping it on course keep some control in their hands so that we can discipline each other and make sure that all benefit if they are inside the single currency.

    I know the British press come here playing sort of soft echoes of the kind of debate we have about Europe back home but when you are really looking at a Council like this at a very key moment in the European Union, when there is a lot on the agenda, actually the team that John brings here is one that contributes powerfully and in a heavyweight way and if sometimes this upsets one or two of the ministers from some of the smaller nations it is because they know that they do have to take notice of our influence and they know perfectly well that we are showing them how to do it in quite a lot of these key areas.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I could add just one other point, the prospect of Ken taking a small part in any discussion is against nature!

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    That was one of my shorter contributions.

    QUESTION:

    The Chancellor rather famously made an assessment previously about the likelihood of EMU starting on the target date of 1st January 1999. I wonder if you would give us what your current assessment of the likelihood of that start date?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    My assessment is that I said 60/40 will go ahead at all around the turn of the century.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    What are your current views on that?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I haven’t revised and updated mine.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expressed mine a few days ago that I still have doubts about 1999 and we will have to wait and see and the Chancellor has doubts about not only 1999 but 2000 as well it would seem.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    Let me be clear about this! You say you have doubts so on balance you think it is unlikely that it will start on 1st January 1999?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    You are asking us to forecast the course of the economy in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and quite a lot of other key countries. They are all working on the basis that a large number of them are going to be truly convergent on the figures for 1997. I hope we achieve that degree of success across western Europe because the more successful the economies of the European Union are, the more we, the British, do well, because we are probably becoming the most competitive of those economies but I have enough trouble with economic forecasting and if you look across the rest of western Europe I think it is far too soon to tell. That is one of the very very big questions still to be resolved before we get there.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 13 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Friday 13th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can we deal with Barnsley first? You have now lost your majority in the Commons, isn’t it going to be very difficult for you in the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would clearly prefer to have a majority than not to have a majority. I don’t think there is any surprise in the Barnsley result last night, it must be one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Nonetheless, I congratulate the new member on his success, but I don’t think it is going to make a material difference. We have been operating with a very tiny majority, I have no doubt, providing people behave themselves, we will get through to our preferred date.

    QUESTION:

    But can you hang on until 1st May?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to indicate any particular date to you Michael, clever though your question was. But certainly I think we will be able to hang on to our preferred date.

    QUESTION:

    Do you also expect to be in a minority of one at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will vary on different issues. There are some issues where we clearly have a different view from our European partners, that is undoubtedly true; on other issues I think we have a lot of colleagues and in some issues we are in the majority. So I think it will vary from issue to issue. But on the areas where we are in a minority, we have very cut positions and we will stick to them. Our partners know that.

    QUESTION:

    And would you therefore regard the summit a success if you managed to block any further progress in Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think this is going to be a summit in which serious decisions are going to be taken. What I would expect is that we will endorse the Presidency text as the basis for negotiations during the rest of the Intergovernmental Conference period. Now the Presidency text sets out everyone’s positions, the majority positions and the minority positions, so I don’t expect there are going to be serious decisions taken, it doesn’t look like that at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Isn’t it at least possible that no serious decisions will be taken because this has been described as a wait and see summit – in other words wait and see whether you are still here in Amsterdam?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t only the United Kingdom that don’t think it is right to take decisions at this summit, there are a lot of other countries who don’t think it is right to take decisions in advance of the detailed negotiation that is still required to be done. So I think that is a very sensible position.

    No, I think there is no doubt that some of the socialist countries would prefer to deal with a socialist government in the United Kingdom, that is certainly the case. The socialists across Europe, including Mr Blair, meet routinely before summits to try and concert their positions. Well I don’t think that the British people would like their national decisions taken behind closed doors in meetings of socialist leaders. So I am here, they will have to deal with me and I expect to be here after the election and they will still have to deal with me.

    QUESTION:

    Last night’s deal on the Stability Pact, France seems to have got its way, there will be political control over the fines, is this another fudge?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t a final deal yet, I think the Chancellor will tell you, there is still a good deal more still to be done. There is no agreement yet on figures. I am about to discuss the details of what was discussed last night with the Chancellor, so he may wish to add something. But there is no final deal on this yet, but certainly it looks as though any decisions of that sort will be subject to political control and not automaticity.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I think that the French had a good point, which we supported them on, the whole thing has to remain under the political control of the Ministers of the nation states who are taking part. But it is not part of the fudging the criteria or fudging the way it goes ahead, it is just to ensure that the Finance Ministers of the elected governments of the nation states retain political control over the whole process, and still you can combine that with a sensible Stability Pact and I think the Ministers sorted most of that out last night.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 12 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Thursday 12th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how much pressure do you think you might come under at this summit over the issue of national border controls and of the national veto.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have absolutely no idea what pressure I will come under, but it is not really very relevant because the British position is fixed and it is not going to change.

    QUESTION:

    The European Commission President, Jacques Santer, has said that you are wrong to portray Brussels as being against national sovereignty, what is your response to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope they will prove it in the negotiations, I am very happy for them to do that. But it really is no good of Brussels to say from time to time that there are only two choices in Europe: either to have a deeply integrationist Europe, though they sometimes call it different things; or a Europe that is nothing more than a common trading area. We are a good deal beyond the common trading area now, but I think the question is precisely how it develops from now.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about Labour’s involvement in the Today programme poll?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know very little about that, to be frank, I have only heard broad rumours about it, I have been travelling for the last couple of hours. But the people in the back rooms at the Labour Party are pretty unscrupulous these days, they would frankly do anything if they thought it would gain votes, so I am unsurprised.

    QUESTION:

    Do you deplore that kind of behaviour?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think self-evidently so, but let us wait and see what we hear about it tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Can you confirm for us that Ministers are reported to have agreed on the selective beef cull going ahead?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are some exchanges of correspondence going on about the issue, but we still need to have some more discussions with Brussels on the question of the science and precisely how things proceed. So I hope we will be in a position to make a statement about the way forward sometime in the next few days. In the summer we decided to delay it because there was uncertainty about the science, and of course it was perfectly clear then that the over-30 months scheme, the cull of other cattle, was going to take much longer than we thought because far more cattle were being brought forward. We have now slaughtered I think just over a million cattle. That is far more than originally anticipated and it has taken rather longer. But we have now caught up the backlog and many of the cattle that would have been in the selective cull have now come forward in the over-30 months scheme. So the selective cull is likely to be at a much lower level than previously was thought.

    QUESTION:

    It sounds as though we are prepared to go along with that provided we can sort things out with Brussels, is that the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The original agreement at Florence was that we would have the over-30 months scheme, we would then have the selective cull and then we would return for the scientists to have a look at what has happened and begin to get some lifting of the ban.

    What we are now looking at is certified herds which would enable lifting in different parts of the United Kingdom as the herds were certified. But what has delayed matters, there have been many misleading reports about it, but what has delayed matters has been the extra scientific evidence that became available after Florence, some of which is still not yet determined, and that has really been the cause of most of the difficulties.

  • PMQT – 12 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

    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. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the run-up to the Dublin summit, he will not abandon the British veto? Will he assure the House that he will never abandon that veto and never dissemble it in favour of qualified majority voting? Is he aware that European socialist leaders are in Dublin planning to do just that, and that the leader of the Labour party is part of that plot?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that we intend to retain the veto at the intergovernmental conference. I believe that to lose the veto would be quite unacceptable from the point of view of British national interest. It would open up policies that would be utterly unacceptable not only to the House but, I believe, to the majority of people in this country. We will maintain the veto. As I have indicated to the House before, I see no significant case whatever for an extension of qualified majority voting.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday’s Treasury figures showed that the tax burden has gone up since 1992? Given his own record on tax, will he guarantee that, at the next general election, any tax promises that he makes will be made under oath?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows the relative records of the Conservative party and of his party on tax: he knows that income tax was 33p in the pound; he knows that other taxes went up to 98p in the pound; he knows that he has made £30 billion-worth of promises that he has to tax for; and he knows that he will be prepared to introduce a range of new taxes. It is no good him making silly gestures. That is the reality of life, and this country knows that.

    Mr. Prescott: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that, regardless of whether the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) or the Prime Minister himself says that they will cut tax year on year, nobody believes the Tories? Will he now take down the posters that falsely claim that he cut tax, or is he going to carry on dissembling?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind the utterly untruthful and unscrupulous campaign that his party has been waging. Now that his leader has turned his back on him for a minute, perhaps he will confirm what the rate of the new windfall tax will be; perhaps he will tell us what the tartan tax will be and what its implications will be for Scotland; perhaps he will tell us about the health tax or the teenage tax or the extra tax on London or the very high taxes set by almost every Labour council up and down the country. Taxes, the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party go together like strawberries and cream.

    Mr. Prescott: Is the Prime Minister not aware that since 1992 no fewer than 16 Ministers have resigned from his Government, many in shameful circumstances, which is a record number for any Government in British history? No wonder the Tories have lost the trust of the nation. Are we not at last seeing the last throes of a dying, dissembling Government, who should realise that it is time to go?

    The Prime Minister: I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has been practising that line in front of the mirror all morning. No doubt the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is very pleased with his pupil for having learnt today’s sound bite, but the right hon. Gentleman would be better off finding out policy and answering for the policies that his party tries to hide.

     

    Q2. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he seen the report that nearly one in three German companies are trying to escape from European employment legislation? Will he continue to ensure that British firms are never saddled with those job-wrecking policies?

    The Prime Minister: It was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who went along with his Socialist International friends and signed up to precisely those policies, as no doubt his leader is doing yet again today, irrespective of the jobs that it will cost people in this country. I am not surprised that companies across Europe are moving from European countries to this country to establish themselves and to create jobs here. Other countries are losing investment as a result of following policies that the Opposition advocate. Companies are leaving those countries, coming here and investing and creating jobs, which is why our unemployment is falling.

    Mr. Ashdown: Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, if the practical advantages of a single currency outweighed the disadvantages, he would be in favour of joining. Will the Prime Minister confirm that that is his view as well?

    The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we have kept an option–so that we can decide what is in the national interest. That has been our position from the outset. We must determine whether something is in the British national interest. If it is in the British national interest, we do it; if it is not in the British national interest, we say no.

    Mr. Viggers: While courage and valour are normally associated with our armed forces, does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been some remarkable cases of courage beyond the call of normal duty in our schools and elsewhere in the face of violence recently? Does he think that the Daily Mail and others have a reasonable point that such courage might reasonably be rewarded in the honours list or elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister: I think, as my hon. Friend knows, that there is a proper mechanism for considering such matters and that it is not for me to comment on them from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that what my hon. Friend said will be heard in appropriate places.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Hutton: Why cannot the Prime Minister admit that taxes on income as a percentage of earnings for all families will be higher at the time of the next general election than they were at the last? Why cannot he admit the accuracy of his own Government’s figures–or has dissembling become a way for life for the Tory Government?

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the real fact about taxes: that taxes would have been higher this year if we had still had the same tax regime as we had in 1991; taxes have fallen. I will also tell him that the average family will be £1,100 a year better off as a result of the tax changes and growth in the economy. That would not have occurred under any other Government, and certainly did not occur under the last Labour Government.

    Mr. Carttiss: In his discussions at the Dublin conference this weekend, will my right hon. Friend press as hard as he can on our European Union partners the need to come up with a favourable solution to the problem of quota hopping, which has caused so much damage to the United Kingdom fishing industry?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, but that will be a matter for the intergovernmental conference rather than discussions over this weekend. As my hon. Friend will know, we tabled a protocol to deal with quota hopping, and it is one of the matters that we shall deal with during discussions at the intergovernmental conference.

     

    Q5. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have a very straight answer to my very simple question, which the Prime Minister has already been asked by two Labour Members? Is it true that yesterday the Government published some new figures on taxation, which show that far more of an average family’s income will be paid to the Government in the coming year in the form of national insurance and income tax than was paid in 1992? The answer is yes or no. May I have that answer please?

    The Prime Minister: I have answered that question twice in the past few minutes, and the answer is exactly the same as it was a few moments ago.

    Mr. David Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the outstanding reputation of the United Kingdom civil service throughout the world for integrity, independence and impartiality? Will he further join me in condemning those civil servants who appear to have joined some elements of the press and the Labour party in a network of systematic leaks, which are damaging not only the Government and Parliament but the reputation of the civil service and the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly share my right hon. Friend’s belief that we have a first-class civil service. The overwhelming majority of civil servants abide strictly by the rules, but unfortunately a very few do not. Any leaks are to be deplored, but equally to be deplored are the activities of Labour Front Benchers and Back Benchers who encourage and use leaks.

    “Leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them.”

    Those words were used by the then shadow Transport Secretary not very long ago. I hope that we shall hear no lectures about standards in politics from people who make such remarks.

     

    Q7. Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: When my right hon. Friend goes to Dublin at the weekend, will he press on his European counterparts the success of the British economy and tell them that it can be attributed to 17 continuous years of Conservative government?

    The Prime Minister: I shall most certainly do that. Anybody who reads what is being said almost daily in Europe–for example in the French press recently–will realise that people abroad recognise the success of the British economy and, on a number of occasions, have praised not just the success of the British economy but the policies of this Government, which they believe have brought it about.

     

    Q8. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Mullin: With the benefit of hindsight, does the Prime Minister consider it unfortunate that a company controlled by one man now controls 40 per cent. of our national newspapers and the technology liable to form the gateway to all British television in the near future? Does he consider it unhealthy that we now appear to have reached a position where neither of the main parties is willing to speak out because of the fear that that company will unleash its newspapers against it in the run up to a general election? This is not a cheap attempt to score points and I hope that the Prime Minister will not respond in that way. It is a serious matter in a democracy.

    The Prime Minister: We have an open market. I believe that that is the right way for us to proceed, but that power must be used responsibly. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I hope he will draw that to the attention of his party leader, who flew to prostrate himself at the feet of the gentleman whom I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Mr. Renton: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the excellent article, which is extremely positive about our trade with Europe, on page 6 of The Sun, written by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Its headline reads: “Britain can be Champs of Europe like Man United!” Our local club in Sussex, the Seagulls–Brighton and Hove Albion–although conveniently placed for trade with the continent, is in every kind of trouble at the moment. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could instruct his colleagues, when they write such positive articles in future, to give the Seagulls a bit of a boost.

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to commend the scale of our trade with our colleagues in the European Union. There is no doubt about its importance, its growth and the extent to which it has contributed to a general rise in the standard of living in the United Kingdom. As for my hon. Friend’s football team, if he will forgive me, I often have enough difficulty with my own football team.

    Madam Speaker: I deprecate the absence of hon. Members today without an apology to the Prime Minister or to me.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Unemployment

    Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Yes, I expect to do so as part of the discussion on the intergovernmental conference.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As unemployment in the rest of the European Union has risen by 5 million in five years, which means 3,000 individual human tragedies every day, and as Britain alone has falling unemployment, partly because of our exclusion from the exchange rate mechanism, does the Prime Minister appreciate why a growing percentage of people in Britain consider the European Union a rather inadequate organisation? In the light of those alarming figures, is he willing to consider the possibility of letting the people of Britain have a say in their future? Can he at least guarantee that, in any referendum on the European currency, the decision will be taken before sterling is linked in any way to the euro?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is falling consistently across the United Kingdom, and is either rising or static in the rest of the European Union.

    On my Friend’s main point, we have made a firm commitment to hold a referendum if the next Conservative Government recommend that Britain should join a single European currency in the next Parliament. I confirm to my hon. Friend that, if such a referendum were held, it would of course be held before sterling was linked in any way with any putative European currency. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we do not intend to rejoin the so-called ERM mark 2, and would not wish to institute any policy of shadowing the euro.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

    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.

    Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister seriously pressing ahead with Budget measures that would deprive between 7,000 and 10,000 ex-service people of their entitlement to war pensions, and cost thousands more their entitlement to benefit paid for deafness resulting from war service? It is only a few weeks since we saw disabled war pensioners determined to march, limp or be pushed in wheelchairs past the Cenotaph. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten them now.

    The Prime Minister: Of course not. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled by reports in The Guardian and by the conflation of two separate and distinct matters. The first involves proposals to simplify about 19 complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second concerns new independent medical advice on pensions paid for loss of hearing. The purpose of that independent advice is to determine what disabilities have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. Those changes were–[Interruption.] That independent medical advice is the normal way of dealing with these matters. It has invariably been accepted. It usually puts up entitlements–that has always been the case in the past. I know of no circumstance when it has not been accepted. It was discussed this morning with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which will now consider the details.

    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great rejoicing today in the knowledge that A-level standards will be retained and strengthened? Does he agree that that is one of many reforms introduced by the Government for the benefit of British education?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks for many people, including many millions of parents. Standards are at the heart of the Government’s policies on education and will remain so. Our national qualifications must remain at the highest standard, and A-levels are central to that.

    Mr. Blair: May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of war pensions? Future pensioners will lose as a result of the changes. Those changes to war pensions were described in the Government press release on Budget day as proposals

    “to simplify policy and procedures”,

    whereas they actually mean £50 million-worth of cuts. Does the Prime Minister accept that that was inaccurate and misleading, and will he apologise to the British people for that deception?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong. If the House will permit me to repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall take the Labour leader through it gently, so that he understands. Two issues have been run together in a simplistic and misleading way by The Guardian. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on The Guardian for his information, that explains why he is so often inaccurate in his questions.

    The first issue involves proposals to simplify complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second is the way in which we have always dealt with independent medical advice concerning pensions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members shout. After some months, we have just accepted independent advice on emphysema, having been pressed to do so by the Opposition. We did so willingly. That is what we always do with independent medical advice and what we have done on this occasion. The purpose of the independent advice that we have always sought is to determine what disablements have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. That is happening on this occasion–nothing different, no change. We are following the normal practice for dealing with these matters.

    Mr. Blair: Let me deal with each part in turn, so that the Prime Minister can answer each part. The first involves hearing disability. The Prime Minister says that the changes were made on independent medical advice. If the reason for the changes was independent medical advice, why were all his Social Security Ministers opposed to them, which they were, and why did not the Budget press release mention the fact that the changes reduced expenditure by £35 million?

    The second part involves the other changes that the Prime Minister mentioned. He says that they are merely a simplification. Are they on the basis of medical advice? Is that why widows’ rent allowances are to be abolished for new cases? The Prime Minister shakes his head. Is that happening or not? Not issuing reminders to return claim forms–is that happening or not? Ceasing to issue copies of decisions to third parties–is that happening or not? Is the instruction “Do not direct appellant to Royal British Legion as their representative” correct or not? Instead of patronising comments about how we do not understand, will the Prime Minister deal, first, with the matter of medical advice and his Social Security Ministers and, secondly, with each of the points that I have made?

    The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, he has completely misunderstood what has happened. He has not seen the full range of correspondence, and as usual–despite his piety about a leak a week or so ago–he relies on leaked correspondence. If he had seen the correspondence, he would not have misunderstood the matter in the way he just has.

    I repeat: the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, and I hope that he will not pursue it. We are trying to simply the procedures, as that is the right thing to do in the interests of the taxpayer, as well as of the applicants and the recipients of benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to simplify procedures across government, no wonder he envisages expenditure rising under a Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the specific points that were put to him, he will stand condemned out of his own mouth. I must ask him why–[Hon. Members: “Question”]. This is a question–“why” is normally the start of a question. Why, if it is all just administrative procedures, does one Minister talk about a storm that is about to break about the Government’s head?

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister shakes his head. A Minister said that. Why do the Government talk of “sweeteners”? They talk of these things because they know that they have been caught doing something shabby and mean-minded. If he cannot be trusted with British war pensioners, why should he be trusted at all?

    The Prime Minister: As is typical, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted out of context and wrongly, and he has drawn the wrong conclusion from what he has said. One day, he might find out what he is talking about before he starts to talk about it.

    Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend knows that, when he vetoes the Commission’s new proposals on borders–as Conservative Members know he will–the European Parliament has said that it will renew its action in the European Court. My right hon. Friend’s own advisers say that the court will rule our borders unlawful, as the treaty now stands. Will he therefore explain to the House the contradiction, in that he says that our borders are not negotiable but his Ministers say that we will not break European law?

    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear to our European partners on innumerable occasions that we will not accept any form of treaty change that alters the sanctity of British borders. Treaty change will need to be by unanimity, and we will not give our consent to it. There should be no doubt among any of our European partners that we are not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the present system of safeguarding Britain’s borders and, hence, our immigration controls.

     

    Q3. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Prime Minister aware that his absent Chancellor of the Exchequer has been briefing journalists on the Prime Minister’s failed attempt to change Government policy on Europe? Does he agree with the Chancellor, who has described the Prime Minister’s failed attempt as a boomerang wrapped in high explosive which has blown up in the Prime Minister’s face?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a statement in my hand that denies the report to which he refers.

    Mr. Dover: Following the excellent Budget speech by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend will have heard stupid statements from the Labour party about a lower basic rate of tax than 20p and lifting the ceiling for the 40 per cent. tax rate. Will not these unfounded pledges or promises–call them what you will–only give rise to higher taxation–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions, not about the Opposition but on behalf of the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister might turn the question around and attempt to answer it.

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly–[Interruption.] It is nice to welcome back the deputy leader of the Labour party. I thought that he was in Scotland answering focus groups.

    It is certainly the case that, in order to contain public expenditure and hold down taxation, many extremely difficult decisions have to be taken. We have taken those decisions and I acknowledge the difficulty of doing so.

    Mr. Faulds: Out of order.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    I think that the whole country understands the unlikelihood of any alternative Government taking such decisions.

     

    Q4. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us where he has hidden those economic jewels that he referred to in a speech last week? I went to the Treasury chest to find them and I found a big IOU that said that the country owed a £380 billion national debt which had doubled since the Prime Minister took office. There was another IOU showing a £19.5 billion public sector borrowing requirement shortfall.

    Then I met a bloke on the street with his head down. I said, “Are you looking for these economic jewels too?” He said, “No, I’m looking for work.” In my opinion, the Government sold off the economic jewels along with all the silver that they sold off the other years.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury basement the other day, he did not leave a match behind him.

    As for our economic jewels, I invite the hon. Gentleman to find any other country with unemployment falling like ours, tax rates and growth at our level, growing exports, a narrowing trade gap and economic prospects as good as ours. He cannot do it, because there is not one. The chap he found looking for work would be joined by many others looking for work if the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates were ever put into effect.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia – 4 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia, held at Lancaster House in London on Wednesday 4th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I begin by extending a warm welcome to the fifty-six delegations of the Peace Implementation Council assembled here today.

    This is the fourth time in as many years that I have had the pleasure of welcoming many of you to London for a key international conference on the future of Bosnia.

    So to all of you who are returning, it is excellent to see you again. And to those of you here for the first time, it is very good to have you here.

    When we last met here in Lancaster House a year ago – for the first ever session of the Peace Implementation Council – the conflict in Bosnia had just ended. It had claimed over 200,000 lives; and it had forced more than two million people to flee their homes.

    At that meeting, we set ourselves the task of ensuring that the guns remained silent. And we embarked on the massive task of implementing the peace settlement and rebuilding a shattered nation.

    One year on, we should not understate the achievements:

    – the guns have stayed silent. The armies have disengaged and have returned to barracks. Heavy weapons have been put in cantonments;

    – national, entity and cantonal elections have been held;

    – reconstruction has begun, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last twelve months;

    – a quarter of a million refugees have returned to their homes;

    – Sarajevo, for so long a city under siege and a symbol of the Bosnian war, has been transformed;

    – the new Presidency has begun its work and agreement has been reached on the structure of the Council of Ministers.

    This is a substantial record.

    It would be easy to claim that we should have done better, that more refugees should have returned, or that the new central institutions are not yet working.

    But that would be to undervalue how much has been achieved. And it would fail to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of so many different organisations and individuals over the last year:

    – the drafters of the Peace Agreement who, under American leadership and with Contact Group support, drove the negotiations to a successful conclusion;

    – the 60,000 strong NATO-led implementation force, drawn from over thirty nations, which represents the biggest such effort that NATO has ever undertaken. It proved itself a success – and has provided an historic turning point in NATO-Russia co-operation;

    – the OSCE, which has organised elections involving about two million people;

    – the World Bank and European Commission which have together led the reconstruction effort;

    – the 1,500 plus members of the International Police Task Force who have been active throughout Bosnia, monitoring, training and improving police standards;

    – and the UNHCR, who have been taking forward the difficult and complex task of refugee return.

    I should like to pay a particular tribute to Carl Bildt, who as High Representative, has presided over the civilian side of peace implementation with exceptional energy and dedication, and formidable political skills. He has cajoled the international community and Bosnia’s leaders in equal part, driving forward the peace process.

    Could I therefore say to you, Carl, on behalf of all at this Conference, how much we have admired and appreciated your efforts over the last 12 months. No-one could have done more than you to consolidate peace in Bosnia: and we all welcome your agreement to stay on for a few months into 1997.

    Last month’s meeting in Paris set the framework for action to consolidate peace in Bosnia over the next two years. Today’s conference focuses in on the next 12 months:

    – on the priorities for Bosnia’s leaders;

    – and on the tasks and commitments of the international community.

    Just before coming here, I was glad to have the opportunity of a talk with Bosnia’s new Presidency. I would like to underline to this wider audience a little of what I have just said privately.

    None of us at this conference underestimate the task you face. You are rebuilding a nation, only a few months after a bitter war, with the wounds and divisions not yet healed.

    But you were elected by the Bosnian people as their investment in and commitment to a brighter future.

    They have placed their trust in you.

    They want you to help them restore their homes, reunite their families and recreate the communities in which they once lived in peace.

    And they want, above all, to be sure that the war which disfigured Bosnia’s past will never return.

    This is a heavy responsibility. And none of it will be easy:

    – it will require difficult decisions, difficult compromises, difficult concessions;

    – it will require the statesmanship to put the wider interests of your people above short-term or factional concerns;

    – and it will require concentration on the substance – on the establishment of your Council of Ministers and of your Central Bank for instance – not on the trivia of protocol.

    Over 50 states and international institutions have come to London with one objective in mind: to decide how we can best help you in the future.

    We are united in our wish to see Bosnia and Herzegovina succeed, so that you are able to assume in full your rightful place in Europe. The UK has devoted huge resources, both financial and human, to Bosnia over the last few years. We are now planning, with our allies and partners, to maintain troops on Bosnian soil into 1998.

    I am sure I am not alone in saying that a peaceful and secure future for Bosnia is a key foreign policy objective – and that our relations with Bosnia’s neighbours will be conditioned by their support for this objective.

    But the international community’s efforts in themselves will not be enough. There has to be a real commitment to peace and reconciliation within Bosnia.

    And as representatives of the different communities, the people of Bosnia and the international community look to you to lead the way.

    What precisely do we look for? The recent agreement on the structure of the Council of Ministers represents excellent and very welcome progress. I know that you are working to nominate individuals to their Ministerial posts as soon as possible. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of your establishing quickly a fully-functioning government with which the international community can deal.

    Economic regeneration also has to be a key priority.

    In 1996, the international community took the lead in kick-starting the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dedicated efforts by thousands of technical experts, NGOs and IFOR soldiers have restored some of the basic infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from the return of electricity this winter. Thousands of children have restarted their education.

    But there is a limit to what the international community can do.

    It is most important that next year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should accept the primary responsibility for your own economic development. Judging by my own visits, at least, what ordinary people want more than anything else – there as elsewhere – are jobs and a decent standard of living. These modest aspirations can only be achieved by establishing effective institutions and sound, market-based economic policies.

    But such policies can only work if people, goods and capital move freely throughout the country. There will be no economic revival while a businessman in Banja Luka cannot pick up the telephone and call Sarajevo.

    Moreover, without the right legal framework, the inward investment so crucial to economic recovery will tend to stay away.

    The international financial institutions stand ready to help. The international community will continue to provide support. But we look to you to take the lead:

    – to set up the Central Bank;

    – to pass the necessary legislation;

    – and to recognise that in today’s open trading environment, economic cooperation is not an option but a necessity.

    We look forward to 1997 also being the year in which large numbers of refugees start to return. In 1996, we achieved a great deal for those already living in Bosnia. But there are hundreds of thousands more in neighbouring states or further afield, who want to return but are unable to do so. We must address their fears and problems.

    We need a comprehensive approach, which recognises the linkages between the various refugee groups in the region.

    And we need to create conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which refugees feel safe to return. This means:

    – full respect for human rights;

    – police forces working within international democratic policing standards;

    – and genuine freedom of movement. One year on from the signature of the Peace Agreement, ordinary Bosnians are still afraid to cross the line between the two entities. This cannot continue.

    I will identify one further priority among the many for 1997. This is full implementation of the arms control commitments in the Peace Agreement, within the agreed deadlines.

    The achievement of a sensible balance in armaments in the region is self-evidently necessary for future peace and security. Everyone recognises this: that is why it was agreed at Dayton.

    But follow-up has been less than whole-hearted. This cannot be allowed to slip. The international community is determined to maintain pressure on this issue until we have achieved our objectives.

    How can the London Conference help with these priorities?

    The aim in the next day and a half is to have a detailed debate on all aspects of peace implementation, drawing on the extensive expertise of those around this table.

    I suggest that we need to identify precise, practical, tasks and targets in all areas, and commit ourselves to accomplishing them.

    So, within the framework of the Peace Agreement, we shall be looking for a series of detailed political undertakings from Bosnia’s leaders. We hope that the representatives of the Entities at this meeting will be ready to make commitments on areas within Entity competence.

    The international community will in turn undertake to provide substantial further help and resources, both human and financial. But this international help will be conditional on the willingness within Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement all aspects of the Peace Agreement.

    If we can work together to meet these shared goals over the next 12 months, we shall have taken a crucial and irreversible step towards securing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future, as a nation able to stand by itself, and to look after its own affairs.

    Later in this conference, we will hear from Hans Van den Broek about the European Union’s support for the peace process.

    This is a key aspect, because Bosnia and Herzegovina’s destiny lies in Europe. All of us look forward to the day when Bosnia and Herzegovina can take its place in European structures and institutions as a successful independent nation based upon the principles and values that we all support.

    Much must happen before this vision can be realised. But if we can achieve our objectives for this conference – and then, crucially, carry them through on the ground over the next twelve months – we shall have laid solid foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    I wish you well in your deliberations.

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

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

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

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

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

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

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

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (John Kampfner, Financial Times)

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

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

    Thank you.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.

    Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.

    National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.

    In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.

    My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.

    Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.

    My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.

    Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.

    Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

    The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.

    A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.

    My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.

    A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.

    Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.

    Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.

    In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.

    My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.