The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Union

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • PMQT – 20 June 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • PMQT – 11 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister heard today’s admission by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that Sir James Goldsmith is helping to fund his faction within the Conservative party? Does it strike the Prime Minister as odd that a foreign-based millionaire–[Hon. Members: “Billionaire.”] Does it strike him as odd that a foreign-based billionaire who has set up his own political party and is running candidates against official Conservative candidates is also funding his own fifth column within the Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to do anything about this extraordinary situation?

    The Prime Minister: I had not seen that statement by Sir James Goldsmith, but of course Sir James is a man of independent mind. Sir James is of course entirely free, if he wishes, to field his own candidates at a general election–I suppose that anyone with £20 million to spend can afford to do that–but he is not going to change our policy.

    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his plans to put some backbone into some of our colleagues who seem to be irrationally obsessed with Sir James Goldsmith, and very scared about him as well? That, presumably, is why my right hon. Friend authorised the attendance of four members of the Government at last night’s bizarre proceedings.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may himself think that he requires authorisation to attend particular meetings, but I assure him that all my hon. Friends will use their own independent judgment about the meetings they attend, and about the judgments they take from those meetings.

    Mr. Blair: It may seem indelicate to intrude on private grief, but may I ask the Prime Minister what we are to make of the political party in government when a former Cabinet Minister hosts a reception for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his campaign manager, to advocate withdrawal from the European Union–in the presence of Ministers–to the leader of a different political party altogether, whose objective is to remove Conservative Members of Parliament at the general election?

    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory. He entered the House on a programme of leaving the European Union.

    Mr. Blair: The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman’s political party is now moving towards advocating that programme. [Interruption.] It is. Let us put it to the test. Will the Prime Minister now join me in saying that the real agenda of many of those who will support the Referendum Bill today is to push Britain to the point of withdrawal from Europe? Will he join me unequivocally in saying that the views of those people who will make that case today are wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can invent his own policies: he should not invent policies for my party. I have made it clear in speech after speech and in the recent White Paper that this country’s role lies within the European Union, fighting for the sort of European Union that is amenable to this country. That remains the position. We intend to try to provide, within the European Union, a set of circumstances that is right for this country. That does not mean that we accept every element of policy that our European partners propose, and it does not mean that we would never be isolated, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that we would give up the veto, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. We are there to fight for British interests, not to follow the policy that the right hon. Gentleman would follow and surrender British interests.

    Mr. Blair: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box as Prime Minister and say that the views of those people are wrong? If he carries on running from them, they will carry on chasing him and the losers will be Britain, our jobs, our industry and our influence. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and take a lead?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is putting views in the mouths of my hon. Friends that are not theirs, and my hon. Friends have made that clear time after time. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to sort out problems on Europe, he might make it clear that he disagrees with those 50 of his Back Benchers who have issued their own manifesto disagreeing with every element of the leader of the Labour party’s policy on Europe. Perhaps he will make it clear that he disagrees with them. Our policy is to be within Europe, fighting for British interests, disagreeing with our European partners when we must, and agreeing with them when it is in the interests of this country.

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board of £150 million of grants today, mostly to help young people? Does that not show that the House was right to make the charities board one of the recipients of national lottery funding and is that not the true image of the lottery in this country?

    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome many of the awards that have been made today. They cover a wide range, including money for Childline, the British Red Cross, an ex-service men’s association and the Samaritans. They will all have widespread support across the country. Having studied the list of all the awards made today, a small number of the awards do not in my judgment reflect the way in which Parliament and the public expected the lottery money to be spent. That is true of a minority of awards. The freedom to make those awards was given to the individual boards by the House and they have responsibility for the awards that they make. Overwhelmingly, they exercise that responsibility well. From time to time, they make awards that are ill founded and ill judged.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Jones: I have given the right hon. Gentleman previous notice of my question. Will he revoke his policy on market testing as it affects military units such as the 1,800-strong RAF Sealand in my constituency, where large-scale redundancies are feared? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no level playing field when predator contractors compete against the in-house bid in RAF Sealand, such as GEC and Brown and Root?

    Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making my part of the world a market-testing-free zone on the basis that, if something is working, one should not fix it? Why put profit before the national interest? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Falklands and Gulf wars, RAF Sealand gave magnificent service to Britain? That is all that it wants to continue to do.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the matter that he wished to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for RAF Sealand and has raised it with a number of my hon. Friends in the past. Our intention is to ensure that the armed forces get the highest possible quality of support at the best value for money for the defence budget. An announcement on the winning contractor is expected towards the end of the year. I am not proposing to revoke our present policy in any way–it is the right policy–but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the in-house bid will be evaluated against precisely the same criteria as the two external bids and that the judgment will be made on value for money.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join the Leader of the Opposition in putting to my right hon. Friend some things that are wrong. Would it not be wrong to oppose the Family Law Bill, which has provisions on domestic violence? As to that measure’s marriage elements, is it not right to get rid of quickie divorces? Ought we not to tidy away the problems of first marriages before letting people get on to second marriages, and would it not be wrong to oppose the Bill because of that as well?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his purpose in asking that question entirely clear. I hope that we shall see some leadership on those issues from individuals who might, for spurious reasons, object to a Bill that I believe is in the interests of the people of this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that drug dealing and money laundering are major difficulties in this country? Is he aware that a Scottish newspaper reported at the weekend that a journalist had approached a major Scottish organisation and offered it money as a donation, and was advised how that money could be laundered? Is that not a particular cause of concern for all of us? Is it not of particular concern for the Prime Minister, when the organisation involved was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?

    The Prime Minister: This Government have taken more action against drug dealing and money laundering than any previous Government, and we continue to do so. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s allegation has any foundation, but if he is prepared to give me details, of course I will have it examined–so that it can be repudiated.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the recent fall in unemployment, which is a sign of good economic management? Will he join me in congratulating Layeezee Beds in Batley, which recently recruited 60 new members to its work force because of demand for that company’s products?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that good news from my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is reflected in many constituencies throughout the country. The economy is in better condition than at any time for a generation, which is why we were able to reduce interest rates yet again last week–simply because we have been successful in keeping inflation under control. Our policies are working, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, growth is beginning to accelerate and this country has better economic circumstances than for many years past–and they are better than in many of our competitor countries on the continent.

    Mr. Benn: How can the Prime Minister justify disfranchising 116,000 voters in the election that he called in Northern Ireland when they voted for Sinn Fein, which is committed to the six Mitchell principles? When there was a ceasefire nearly two years ago, no all-party talks were called for 18 months. Had other Governments followed that principle, there would have been no peace process in the middle east or settlement in southern Africa.

    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein disfranchised itself. It had every opportunity to take part in the talks. Had there been an unconditional ceasefire by the IRA, Sinn Fein could have been a part of the talks process, as I had hoped it would be. Its representatives cannot sit down in a talks process with a bomb on the table and a gun under the table and the threat that, if they do not get their own way in negotiations, they will revert to type and the habits of the past 20 or 30 years. Sinn Fein’s exclusion from the talks is its fault. That is the position of this Government, the Irish Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that situation will not change. It is in Sinn Fein’s hands. A ceasefire and the end of violence, which should have occurred anyhow, quite apart from the talks, and the way would be open for Sinn Fein to join the discussions.

  • John Major’s Speech to the 1996 CBI Conference – 21 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in London on Tuesday 21st May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Brian – quiet relaxed day – well relatively, yes I suppose, relatively. I look along this top table here and I see this splendid collection of European tulips. I am delighted to see the CBI supporting European industry, and I look forward to European industry supporting the British beef industry – of which more later.

    Over this excellent dinner, the President and I were talking about how times change. And when we were talking, in the fashion that sometimes happens, a mental image came into my mind, an old piece of flickering black and white film came in front of my eyes as a memory aid. And it was Harold Macmillan, then Prime Minister, landing at Heathrow Airport and walking down the steps of the plane with Mr Selwyn Lloyd, who was then the Foreign Secretary. And he walked down to the bottom of the steps, and there at the bottom was one single television camera and reporter. And the reporter leaned forward with his microphone to greet the Prime Minister on his return from abroad. “Welcome home, Sir”, he said.

    “I am from the BBC. Do you have anything to say to the BBC?” And this was a tough question. And Mr Macmillan turned around to Mr Selwyn Lloyd and he said: “Do we have anything to say to the BBC?”. And Mr Selwyn Lloyd said: “No”. And Mr Macmillan said: “No, I have nothing to say to the BBC”. And the reporter leaned forward with his microphone and he said: “Thank you, Sir”.

    Not precisely that way today. So times have changed, and that is one of the themes that I want to talk about a little tonight – that theme and the British economy, how it stands, where it is going, and the choices that we face. Because the economy has changed as well in the last couple of generations. Smoke stack industries have given way to high-tech companies; public ownership to private enterprise; the global market place has become a reality; and at home industrial relations and working practices have been transformed.

    All that has happened and is behind us. But what is more important is what lies in front of us and the changes that must still come. We have, as a government, a clear economic ambition, an enterprise economy with the lowest possible taxes and with the least possible burden on business, an economy ready to compete and ready to prosper as the Enterprise Centre of Europe. A full-blooded economy cannot be built by business alone. Government must weld together policies on economic management, on tax, on education, on training, on infrastructure and a great deal else besides.

    And all these of course have a direct bearing on the business environment and on the prospects for enterprise. And it is for that reason that we have put competitiveness right at the top of the agenda. Every single area of government policy, even those which don’t immediately strike people as having something to do with industry, can help make Britain competitive and we must make sure they do.

    And tonight I would like to conduct something of a snap audit on how we are getting on. At the root of an Enterprise Economy is a stable economic climate. I believe that is now well in place. We are growing faster than any European economy at present and inflation is law, and staying low, and has remained lower for longer than I think anyone in this particular room can remember.

    There are some people who hold out the belief that a little inflation is no bad thing. And I guess what they mean is that inflation can make people feel a little more prosperous for a while, wages rise, house prices rise, pensions seem to go up. But it is of course a mirage and it is a mirage that is no good for business. But Britain has learned that lesson the hard way. How many times in the last 50 years since the war have governments lost their economic bearing when the economy slowed? How many times have they been panicked into premature re-inflationary measures that sowed the seeds of much worse problems once the immediate economic difficulties were over? Far too frequently, as everyone in this room well knows.

    When the recession of the early ‘90s hit Britain, we were determined not to fall into that trap. So we took tough action on inflation and on borrowing. It was not popular, it did hurt in the short-term, but it has worked. We have emerged from the recession in better economic shape, firstly than our competitors; and secondly more competitive as an industrial nation than we have been for very many years.

    Now of course, being open-minded businessmen and businesswomen, you may be thinking well he would say that, wouldn’t he? And maybe so. But the facts speak for themselves: low inflation enjoying perhaps its best run for almost 50 years; low interest rates so you can afford to invest in a secure climate; low taxes, though I would like to see them lower yet, low taxes to leave people with more of their money, to make it worth their while taking the risk of running a business; falling unemployment, still too high of course, but the lowest of any major country in Europe. These results are the proof of the pudding, they are the benefits of working for the long term. Other long term policies taken throughout the last 17 years are playing their own individual part in building our national competitiveness.

    Let me touch, for example, on privatisation. Do you remember what was said about each successive privatisation? Morally wrong, wouldn’t work, prices would rise, standards would fall, competition impractical. And we are now seeing how wrong all that was.

    Who feels nostalgic now for the day to day failures of the old state-owned industries? When did you last sit – I will ask Colin – on a British Airways flight and think, if only this was still a nationalised industry? Yet we were told that privatising British Airways would make it the pantomime horse of capitalism, and some pantomime horse it has turned out to be. What a nonsense that criticism was. And when did you last open your gas bill – prices down again – and wish yourselves back in the old days? Or get sentimental about the days when a quarter of pay phones didn’t work?

    It is results like that, the practical proof of the policy, that have won the argument. Private enterprise and competition motivate people. It gives them an incentive to cut prices, attract customers and improve services.

    Now of course those policies are controversial, inevitably so. Every privatisation has been categorised by many people as a privatisation too far. But they have worked, they have worked, and that is what matters, and enterprise and the British economy as a whole have benefited.

    Rail is the latest example. “Couldn’t be done”, the critics said, but it has been. And as of yesterday Railtrack is in the private sector with over 650,000 private investors applying for shares in the company. If Sid was in hiding, he came out again the other day in spectacular fashion. 80 percent of the passenger railway now either sold or on the market; 5 franchises, almost one-third of the passenger railway, already running in the private sector, and by the end of the month that should be up to 40 percent and that number is going to go on rising through the year as the programme rolls on.

    And look at what that means for the passenger? New rolling stock on the Gatwick Express and on lines where passengers have been complaining for years, like the Kent Coast and the London/Tilbury and Southend line. New services in the Midlands and south London where the new franchises have spotted gaps in the market. And where the new passenger, charter commitments. All this at a falling cost to the taxpayer and with a guarantee of keeping fares down that the passenger has never known at any stage before in the history of British Rail. That simply would not, could not have happened; would not and could not have been affordable under public ownership.

    Of course these changes are controversial; they are too disruptive to be otherwise. They are something governments do because they believe it is in the long term interests of the economy, because they believe that harnessing the innovation and energy of private enterprise gives us better public services, better infrastructure and helps build a competitive economy. And that is the point, that is what we are about. Spending the taxpayers’ money efficiently and effectively is central to all this.

    The biggest budget in Whitehall is social security. If we would like a low tax economy, and we would, and I suspect you would as well, we have to get a grip of benefit spending while still being fair to the people who need help. Let no-one assume that we are unconcerned about those who genuinely need help, we are and we will remain concerned about them. But to cut down that budget fairly we need practical detailed changes. You can’t get that just by waving a magic wand. You need to encourage independence, self-provision. You need mechanisms to get back into work where they don’t need help and social benefits. You need to carry difficult, very often contentious, legislation. And that is what we have been doing, not always popular, but it is what we thought was right.

    The new incapacity benefit, job seekers allowance, child support, changing the pension age – these I can promise you tend not to provide short term positive headlines for the government of the day. But they add up, they add up, they are the small ends of the candle that Gladstone referred to that build a whole candle at the end of the week. They add up in saving public spending and helping the enterprise economy by keeping tax low.

    Social security has been growing at an average of 5 percent a year ever since the war. Thanks to the reforms that we have carried through, expected growth is now down from 5 percent a year to 1.25 percent a year in real terms. For the first time in generations, benefit growth will be less than GDP growth, so benefits will take a smaller share of the national cake in the years that lie ahead, and that is something that no government since the war has achieved or been able to look forward to.

    And why does that matter for you? It matters for you because it helps to build a huge competitive advantage for British business. Our competitors in Europe still have to tackle their spiralling welfare bill, and their businesses may well have to pick up the tab. But we have planned ahead over many years. Britain has more invested in private pensions than the rest of the European Union added together. Ours is a system we can afford today and into the next century, and we intend to keep it that way in the future.

    But what of the other things, the things that any government serious about an enterprise economy has got to do to secure those ambitions? Well first and foremost, we have to listen to what it is that business says in the wider sense, and they ask for things way beyond the obvious tax and spend elements of economic management. And first and foremost, we have to complete the task we have set ourselves of getting the education system right.

    There is a great deal to be proud of. Higher education in particular has expanded beyond imagination in the last few years. Higher education is now a reality for 1 in 3 of our young people. At the start of the 1980s, that was 1 in 8 of our young people. So you can see the scale of the changes.

    Our new vocational qualifications, because we believe, I passionately believe, that so-called blue collar qualifications are every bit as valuable to the economy as white collar qualifications, and we need those blue collar qualifications if we are to have the right sort of industrial society that we need to compete not just with Europe but with Asia, the United States and Japan in the years that lie ahead. That is why we looked more towards vocational qualifications, that is why our new vocational qualifications are taking root and winning support, not least if I may say so, to Brian Nicholson’s pioneering work over the last few years which is immensely valuable not just in the short term but in the long term, and I am delighted to express my thanks to him for that this evening.

    And our schools are changing. They are now among the world leaders in the use of information technology. And I would like to keep them there to develop those skills and the advantage they give those children in their future when they leave school, and the advantage that they will give you, as employers, having youngsters coming out of school with a secure basic knowledge of the information technology that is here to stay, whether people like it or not. We either embrace information technology and play our part in leading the world economy, or we push it to one side and we watch other people forge ahead. And that is why Ian Taylor and his colleagues in government are seeking to do all they can to embrace the advantages of information technology.

    No-one knows better than the audience gathered here in this room this evening, the importance of having young people come out of schools with the basic skills in place. Our young people today are your workforce and your successor’s workforce tomorrow. If they are allowed to go through schools with literacy problems and numeracy problems, no amount of training later will compensate. It will not compensate for their quality of life, and it will not compensate for the workforce that you need.

    Tackling that problem is a long haul: the national curriculum, tests and league tables to measure schools’ performances. I personally believe that they are essential and I will tell you why, it is a perfectly common sense reason.

    If you wish to teach a child well, you need to know what it is that the child may not have understood. That is why you need tests. If you can identify what they have not understood, then you can correct the weaknesses and teach them it again until they do understand it but if you never find that out, those children will find themselves hobbled as they move on to higher and more difficult areas of learning. That is why we are seeking to change the culture of education, to bring back methods that work, to turn our back on fashionable theories that I believe have failed a generation or more of our schoolchildren.

    We now have a school inspectorate to punch home that message. Gillian Shephard has made it clear that she will give OFSTED – the Office of Standards in Education – more powers of inspection if they need them to tackle problems and drive up standards still further. Standards – standards – standards. It is time we were unashamed to use the word “excellence” when we set out what we wish to achieve in education. That must be our watchword and I believe in that we would have the support of every employer in the country.

    The fact is, Mr. President, that business and Government must work together to address the challenges of the future, that is essential. Neither of us, neither Government nor you in business, whatever great captain of industry you may be, none of you will achieve what you want entirely on your own.

    Let me give you an example, transport, roads, something I know of great concern to the CBI, that Brian and Adair come to talk to me about every other day, so I know the concern you have about it. Many people recognise the reality of how tightly we have to control public spending and in that climate we simply can’t rely on spending ever more taxpayers’ money on any matter, even one as important as roads. Instead, we have to get the best possible value out of every pound that is spent and that is why the emergence – now out of its chrysalis stage but not in full flower I think – of the Private Finance Initiative is so important, helping us to get what we want for public money, driving the hard bargains in road-building that you would drive in your own commercial enterprises, harnessing skills and ideas and starting projects that otherwise without PFI might never have got off the ground. Over £1 billion of privately-financed roads are now either awarded or in the pipeline, 37 separate schemes in all. There is the Channel Tunnel rail link, a £3 billion project, where the private sector is making a huge contribution in terms of management and money.

    It is not just transport but health too, also vitally important for employers. You want the minimum amount of sickness amongst your workforce and increasingly the days that people are taking off sick are falling year after year as health care and diet increasingly improve but health too is being transformed: five major hospital projects with capital values of over £10 million have reached an advanced stage in the last six months compared with only one a year for the past ten years.

    Just last week, an exciting new £200 million investment was announced for a social security card that will modernise our benefit payment system and crack down on taxpayer fraud.

    Of course it will take time to change the culture as we are seeking to do but we are slowly but steadily doing that and we welcome your help in pointing out what needs to be done and where we can improve the way that PFI works.

    Let me say a word about our relationship with the European Union and the importance of it:

    We must fight together, business and Government, for the things that matter to you in Europe: extending the single market in the areas that still have to be opened up such as energy and pension funds and completing the process in telecommunications. Never forget that the single market, vital and important though it is, is not yet completed. Making sure that others observe the rules that they have signed up to; we invariably do – our law officers insist upon it – and we must make sure that everyone else does as well, wherever we can, using whatever allies we can – and we do have allies on this issue – to stem the flow of new regulations and taking a cool-headed view of what will really serve the interests of British business in the long term.

    We have our own distinctive, British view of how the European Union should develop and in many important ways it is different from the views of many of our European partners but nobody should misunderstand the significance of that difference but if they do, let me make it clear that Britain is in the European Union, it is going to stay in the European Union and it is going to fight in the European Union for the sort of business environment that is right for business prospects in this country and to try and build the sort of European Union with which the British nation are comfortable.

    No-one regards our friends in other European countries as anti-European when they fight for what they believe is the right sort of development for the European Union. Well, I propose to say something very controversial! I think I have exactly the same right to fight in the European Union for the sort of European Union that we wish to develop for the future but no-one should doubt that we will be in there pitching for that particular development.

    We work together with our European Union partners where we can but that does make it, to my mind, doubly important that when agreements are made those agreements are held to. At Maastricht, I obtained an opt-out from what became known as the “social chapter” and I did it for this reason: because I believed it would add to the cost of business, reverse trade union and other reforms we put in place over the last 17 years and would push up unemployment. I have no intention of losing the benefits of that opt-out from the social chapter and let me tell you something about it.

    I do not believe it is right for politicians to seek popularity across Europe by laying benefits upon people in work at the expense of employers with the absolute certainty that it will make it more likely that those people still out of work will remain out of work because it will be too expensive to employ them in the future. There are 20 million European adults out of work. In this country unemployment, thank goodness, has been falling for two and a half years and is lower than any of our partners in Europe of any significant comparable size to the United Kingdom but that is not true across Europe and I do not see it as a moral position for governments to add costs to employment in the certainty that that will mean that the people who are out of work today may stay out of work for many years in the future. It is not just industrially “bonkers”, I believe it is morally wrong and we will not sign the social chapter.

    Let me, however, add another point. At Maastricht our European partners agreed that we would not be part of the social chapter but today there is a threat to that opt-Out: the health and safety articles of the treaty were agreed in 1985 to deal with genuine matters of health and safety but recent attempts to use them as a basis for imposing the working time directive on Britain go beyond what we agreed to and not only that, the breach the understanding I reached at Maastricht when I negotiated our opt-out from the social chapter. I have said to our European partners in unmistakable terms that we must change the health and safety provisions so that they reflect the more limited scope that was originally intended and that the British Parliament originally agreed to and I take this very seriously. We cannot be expected to have confidence in European agreements if they are subsequently undermined by shifts in interpretation. I do not wish to be misunderstood about this. If old agreements are to be broken, I do not see how we can reach new agreements so before there could be any agreement of any sort in the forthcoming inter-governmental conference we have to ensure that agreement on the social chapter and our opt-out is, secure and cannot be undermined.

    Mr. President, the most urgent issue facing us in Europe as we meet this evening is the crisis in the beef industry across the Continent and the export ban on British beef and on British products. We are taking every necessary step to tackle the problem of BSE in Britain and we are doing that in the interest of the British beef industry. We wish to eradicate BSE in our own interest, not under pressure from our European partners but in the interest of our own beef industry.

    The incidence of BSE has already come down radically, with the measures we have taken it will be eradicated slowly but certainly. The new measures we have taken to ensure the public is safe are costly measures, many are also painful for the farmers and difficult to implement speedily but we are absolutely determined to do everything necessary to ensure there is no risk to the consumer and that is why we have found so frustrating the lack of progress in persuading our European partners to agree on a strategy to lift the ban.

    The European Commission, President Santer and Commissioner Fischler have been very helpful. A majority of member states supported the latest Commission proposal to lift the ban on some beef derivatives as a first step but others ignored the scientific evidence, and did not support lifting that ban. The result is that so far we have no tangible progress in the European Union.

    As I told the House of Commons earlier today, this can no longer be tolerated. If some of our partners are unwilling to extend goodwill to us we shall have to withhold our own. As long as there is no agreement on a process leading to a progressive lifting of the ban, we shall not be able to cooperate where others need our agreement in the European Union. We shall also actively pursue our legal case against the ban.

    I do not embark upon such a course lightly but the scientific evidence so clearly on Britain’s side is being set aside. Progress on lifting the ban to help the British beef industry has to be at the forefront of our efforts in Europe but cooperation must be a two-way street, Business as normal is impossible in present circumstances and that includes the inter-governmental conference so let me be clear:

    This is not an “empty chair” policy. We will be there arguing our corner at every meeting, arguing it as hard as ever but we will not agree to measures where our agreement is needed. This is by no means the way in which I wish to do business in Europe but I see no alternative.

    I now seek a rapid agreement through negotiation with the Commission and with our partners. I will do everything I reasonably can to make this possible. We can then return to normal business and nobody wishes to see that more than I do but mercifully, Mr. President, there is more to life than Europe and beef. Although half of our trade is with the European Union, the other half is not and the opportunities here are immense. If I had one wish for our European partners, it would be that the whole of the European Union would lift its eyes, look beyond competition between France and Germany and Portugal and Britain and look at the competition in the Pacific Basin, in the United States, in Japan and in growing ways in Latin America.

    The opportunities for we British in those markets are immense. We have fantastic advantages in overseas markets: a strong economic base at home, the great plus of the English language – the business language of the world and increasingly the language in which the whole world communicates – historic links right the way around the world; this is not nostalgia, these are opportunities for British industry and commerce. We are much more heavily involved in overseas investment activities than any other country except the United States; we have far more investment for example in the United States than the Japanese do, we are just sensible enough not to buy their golf courses and their mountains and it is not controversial — and relative to GDP the United Kingdom is the number one investor among the G7 just as we lead the field in inward investment.

    As we dine together this evening, Michael Heseltine I am reliably told is in China. No difficult votes, he is in China! – with 270 businessmen and women, leading Britain’s largest ever trade mission there. I have led similar missions myself most recently to India, to South Africa and Israel; Ian Lang is back from Japan and he is off to Russia next week and that is just the tip of the iceberg; over the last year, there have been 80 ministerially-led trade missions taking thousands of businessmen all over the globe and generating business worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

    We have already done – you and I – much of the hard work to guarantee a bright future but now we must make sure that we build on it and do not throw it away. There can be no question of letting up on inflation, no question of loosening the purse strings, no question of taking the more insidious route – the smile, the handshake and the signature on the social chapter – that signs away British jobs and nor can we let our education system fall victim to wrongheaded fashion again. Any or all of those would be to betray the hard work that we and you have done to build up the prospects that we now enjoy.

    We live in the most competitive world economy we have ever known. Some people may find that threatening, I don’t. The future will bring new challenges but we can face then with the policies and the principles that are steering this country to a better economic future, we have never sought to duck change or to hide from challenge, we know that change can be turned to our advantage and that is what we have sought to do.

    We are ahead of the game with many of tomorrow’s challenges precisely because we have tackled problems that have beset the British economy for decades. Our competitors know that but perhaps we as a nation should acknowledge it more often because if we fail to recognise our own achievement we may not secure and build upon the opportunities that they present.

    My ambitions for the future are rooted in the policies and principles that have delivered results. We have policies that have brought low inflation, let us build on them and get inflation lower still; we have policies that have brought us falling unemployment, let us build on that and get it lower still; we have policies that have brought taxes down, let us build on that and get them lower still.

    I want this country to have the self-confidence it should have with its own achievements, I want it to lift its eyes and to capitalise upon the strong economic base that we now have. Let us not set limits on what we can achieve. Let us look firstly to protect our achievements and then to build on them to deliver the increasing prosperity that is now within our grasp. Government can’t do that alone, neither, I believe, can industry but together we can. Here in this room, if I may say so, are many of the engines of growth in the British economy. The opportunities there – I know and you know – are more real and more within our grasp than they have been for very many years past. All I would have to say to you is quite simply this; those opportunities are there, let us take them, grasp them and build on them. For the British economy much has been achieved but with our work and our help the best is yet to come!

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Jacques Chirac – 15 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in London on Wednesday 15th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how very pleased we are to welcome the President here to Downing Street this morning. We have had the opportunity this morning of extremely productive discussions. I propose firstly to ask the President to report on those, I will then add a few words to that and thereafter we will take some questions.

    I should mention to you, I think most of you will know this, but the President has to address a joint session of Parliament very shortly so I fear we only have a limited time this morning. So without any further delay I will invite the President to speak to you.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    First of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister, to thank Her Majesty The Queen too and to say how very much I appreciated the way I have been welcomed for this visit.

    This morning we had a long conversation with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministers and our officials, and everyone will I think probably understand that the first subject that was discussed, because it is an urgent topical matter with many consequences, was the subject of BSE and the beef problem. And we have tried to make a very considerable effort in order to show real solidarity because there must be solidarity in a crisis of this kind in Europe and we want solidarity really to mean something, not just to be a vain word, and I hope this will come out clearly very soon, and perhaps even today in practical terms.

    We also discussed together an overall range of European affairs, including the preparation of the IGC and the problems linked to the present evolution of Europe, developments, enlargement, the single currency etc. We discussed questions of military cooperation, bilateral military cooperation, which is an area in which there is very considerable convergence in matters of concern to each country and the proposals that have been made by England and France. We also of course discussed a certain number of difficult situations in the modern world, and in particular Bosnia, but also Burundi and a certain number of other problems.

    And lastly we discussed certain bilateral issues, and in particular we took certain joint decisions relating to cultural affairs, or education affairs in particular for the exchange of young students for secondary school exchanges. This is the kind of thing we want to expand considerable. Also, a common policy on books publishing and translation.

    So those are the matters that we have been talking about today and I would like to particularly mention the spirit of our meeting, which can be summed up in a word, this is a real dialogue, consultation for concerted action which between England and France, this is the kind of thing which must imperatively be strengthened still further. That is my ambition and I understand it also to be the ambition of the British Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. Let me just add a few words to that. Firstly, perhaps I can endorse what the President has had to say. The relationship between Britain and France is extremely close at the moment. In a large number of areas we have very positive and very detailed cooperation, in defence in particular, but in many other areas as well, and the President has mentioned the number of bilateral initiatives that we have finally agreed this morning, the exchange of students perhaps being a particularly relevant one for the relationship between Britain and France, but by no means the only one.

    Of course there are areas of difference, and we have discussed those as well. We have discussed in particular this morning ways in which we might cooperate and look at one another’s positions in the intergovernmental conference before it begins.

    There are a wide range of areas where we have communal interests, and we have agreed that we will examine those and see wherever possible whether we can reach a joint position for the intergovernmental conference.

    I am very grateful for what the President has had to say in his support for the Commission’s proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen today. I think it is extremely important that we get the gelatine, tallow and semen ban lifted. I hope that will happen today. I am grateful for the very positive role that the President in particular has played in seeking to ensure that this comes about.

    We have touched on a wide range of international issues as well: the expansion of NATO, a matter of some importance to both of us; we looked at the relationships and the changes that are happening in different parts of the world. But the predominant part of the discussion was based upon European matters and bilateral matters, as the President has set out just a few moments ago.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister and Mr President, if this partial ban is not eased today, how serious a problem is it going to be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must hope firstly that it is eased today. We see no scientific reason for it not to be eased today, and if it were not to be eased today I think we would need to examine precisely why not and how that matter would proceed. But before I say more about that I think we had better wait and see what happens today.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Mr President, if British beef is good enough for you to eat, why isn’t it good enough to be traded freely within the European Community?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    This is a [indistinct] issue and it is in fact irrational. There is a fear, a fear of disease, a fear of illness, and it is very difficult to overcome that. And I think the British government has done everything it can, it has put all its resources to bear to convince the Commission and the European Union of the need to have a plan, a plan which will in the long term and without risk restore faith in beef consumption. And I would think that the British government is making every effort and I hope we will make progress. We must go ahead step by step. Today as we understand, the Commission is going to propose that the embargo be removed. France favours that position. This will apply to gelatine, tallow and semen, of course, subject to compliance with the technical conditions which the Commission has included in its proposal.

    But it seems to me that these conditions are already in place and are being fulfilled by the British government, so there is no reason therefore for us not to support the proposal by the Commission. That would be a first step, a step in the right direction I would say. And in conclusion I would say that we think that this is a problem that affects the whole of Europe and it is up to Europe to express solidarity when solidarity is needed and I do hope that that strong solidarity will be expressed as of today.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, the British say that we supported you on nuclear matters, and in fact John Major was the only one to support you at that time, and now we look to you to support him on beef – is that a legitimate claim by him?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think it is a problem of supporting one another, it is a question of solidarity on a position. I have told you what France’s position is today, our position it seems to me is a reasonable one and it gives expression to the kind of solidarity that Europe must have with the United Kingdom in its present crisis that it is undergoing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] have made some countries in the region to express the strong desire and wish that the United Kingdom, and mainly France as well, and Europe to play a major role in order to secure the peace that has been achieved so far. This matter has not been raised in your talks but will it be considered here in the future by the European Union as a whole?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should say that the President and I were in touch on a number of occasions, as were Mr Rifkind and Mr de Charette, on the subject of the Middle East and the particular problems in Lebanon recently. There was a very close relationship and if I may say so, the Foreign Minister played a very distinguished role at that time in trying to bring about the ceasefire that has subsequently occurred. Huge progress has been made in the Middle East, there is more to be done, there is no doubt about that. There is no doubt I think that the present position in Lebanon is a fragile position across the border and we are looking for further progress. There is a great deal of bilateral cooperation, particularly between our Foreign Ministers but also directly between the President and dealing with this particular problem. There are some areas where the European Union can play a role, but I think predominantly the role will be played by the members of the Permanent Five, by Britain, by France and by the United States operating bilaterally.

    But that it is a very important matter is beyond doubt and that the British and the French governments are engaged is also beyond doubt.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] in the case of the embargo not being lifted tonight, would you contemplate to have the authority of the empty chair?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to indicate now what is going to happen in the hypothetical situation that you set out. If there is a bad decision today then we will make our position clear over the next day or so. But at the moment I very much hope that a sensible decision will be reached. There is no scientific reason not to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and on semen, no scientific reason at all, and we have made that position clear. The position is really quite straight-forward. The Commission imposed the ban, the Commission have been discussing the matter with the British government. The Commission have now decided to propose that the ban is lifted. Upon that basis I see no proper justification for our colleagues in Europe not agreeing with that, now we must wait and see what happens later today.

    QUESTION (Nicholas Witchell, BBC):

    Mr President, have you heard anything from Prime Minister Major today to make you wholeheartedly confident that Britain will be, as you said at Buckingham Palace last night, a cornerstone in the construction of Europe?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Our discussions on European matters are on-going between our two countries and the British Prime Minister is committed to participating actively in the future of Europe. I understand completely the positions on both sides, and the problems that we have, but we always settle our problems in an open and friendly manner. And for my part what I would like to see is these friendly discussions going forward so that we can hear the voice of the United Kingdom strongly in the European system. You cannot have the future of Europe built without a strong British presence and without Britain being heard.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, we have heard talk about a menage a trois in Europe these days, we know the position of France, Germany and the UK, who is going to be in charge in this menage a trois?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    There is no leader, nobody takes charge in the political menage, not even in households generally. But I can say that France plays its role, as does Britain and Germany, we all do everything we can to harmonise positions. Reform is a constant endeavour, day to day effort, day in, day out, and we participate fully in those efforts.

    QUESTION:

    Today the Commission is bringing out a report on how the various countries in the EU are complying as far as debt is concerned, and therefore the implications that has for the Maastricht criteria. Do you have any comments to make on where the economy stands at the moment and being able to form a single currency, if we so decide, by 1999?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The concept of the criteria at Maastricht was originally a British concept. There are good economic criteria, quite apart from their necessity were any nation states to go ahead with a single currency in 1999. I think we will all look at the Commission report with some interest. But as to meeting those sort of criteria, they are the British government’s policy in any event to meet criteria like this for good economic reasons, and we will look at the report with interest. I think we will also look at the report as to how it indicates across Europe the economic readiness for a single currency amongst many of our partners.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You shouldn’t believe that the convergence criteria are the only element to be achieved to create a single currency. The convergence criteria are founded on good sense, on common sense, based on sound management of the economy. And one should note that the UK, which has proposed, and very wisely so several years back, have made the necessary proposals regarding the restructuring of its finances, is a country where unemployment has fallen. So there is a link between sound, wise, financial management and jobs. Other countries have not been as wise as the United Kingdom in past years and so they now face deficit problems and unemployment problems. Over and above any other consideration, of course we are making every effort to reduce deficits, to respect the convergence criteria, and we do this, also it is a means of more effectively combating unemployment.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, would you say that following your conversations today, and those that you will have by the end of your visit, do you think that there will be rapprochement between the UK and French positions on the concept of the EU and the role of nation states in that union?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would say that my concern, ever since I took office, is to ensure that there is the greatest level of rapprochement between British and French views. And I repeat, I want the building of Europe to be effective and I do not think that that construction of Europe can be effective without agreement with Britain. So we discuss and we make progress, I repeat reform, such wide-ranging reform in particular, is an on-going effort. It also involves enhancing dialogue and makes better understanding, and that is what we do, day in and day out.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Hampton Court – 15 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, with Jacques Chirac, held at Hampton Court near London on Wednesday 15th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I first welcome you all here this evening, but say above all what a particular pleasure it is to welcome the President, and Madame Chirac here to Hampton Court on this occasion.

    We had this morning around two hours of talks, a press conference in Number 10, a fairly busy day for the President and it seemed a good opportunity to offer him a friendly change of scenery this evening.

    Hampton Court has been, for most of its life, a royal palace. Cardinal Wolsey had a great deal to do with its foundation. He had, Mr President, the dubious distinction of leading one of Henry VIII’s first armies rather unsuccessfully I recall against France. And he began to build this in 1514. 12 years later, in a rather vain attempt to curry favour with Henry VIII, he gave it to the King, and without any vain intent to curry favour with Wolsey, the King accepted it.

    It has had a very remarkable history. The game of real tennis was born here in Hampton Court, so was Edward VI. Queen Mary spent her honeymoon here, and so did Charles II. James I organised the conference here which led to the authorised version of the bible. And Charles I assembled many of the magnificent pictures that you see around you this evening and for his pains was imprisoned here after the Civil War. King William died after falling off his horse here. And Queen Anne enjoyed the hunting so much here that even when illness prevented her riding any more she had the parks drained and the parks levelled so that she could hunt by carriage. George I had a rather different quarry, Mr President, he brought his German mistresses here, but we don’t often mention that in polite company. George II was the last sovereign to reside here before Queen Victoria opened the palace to the public.

    And yet throughout all that long history, of which the few words I have mentioned are but a small sample, the palace has had many connections with France, representing the intense interaction between our two countries over the centuries. The dates mean, very sadly, that Henry VIII left for France in 1520 to meet Francis I in the famous field of the Cloth of Gold, but not alas from here, despite the splendid portraits you see that record that famous event.

    Of course the relationship between the United Kingdom and France is not just an historical relationship. It is, I think, Mr President, a living truth. And today Britain and France stand not just as two of the oldest sovereign states in Europe, though certainly as that, not just as two countries each with a proud record of national independence, though certainly of that, but also I think as global partners – both Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, Europe’s only two nuclear powers, we share membership of the Group of Seven, of NATO, of the European Union, of the Western European Union and of many other bodies as well.

    We have a trade and political relationship of great depth, one with another. We are each the other’s third largest biggest direct investors and third largest export market. About 10 – 12 million Britons cross the Channel every year to France. 875 British towns are twinned with France, and nearly one-third of those have been established within the last 10 years. And there is, of course, Mr President, a very high level of exchange between our young people and you and I were delighted to announce a further enhancement of that scheme today.

    And we exchange culture as well, not just Cezanne in London for that astonishingly successful exhibition, but this year Henry Moore in Nantes, Frances Bacon at the Pompidou Centre, and a century of British sculpture in Paris. And I even noticed, perhaps at a slightly different level, that a Scottish lady will be singing for France in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, accompanied by a Welsh singer and an Irish piper – a modern manifestation I think of the old alliance.

    A few of you may have noticed in the reception before dinner that we also exchange sportsmen. The new manager of the England football team – Glen Hoddle – who had a marvellous job, and I can’t understand why he should leave it as manager of my football team at Chelsea, but even though he neglected to win Chelsea a championship I look forward to him doing great things with the England team in the future and wish him the best of luck. He is very welcome here this evening. And he of course had a certain role in helping Monaco win the French championship. Chris Waddle of course went one better and helped Marseilles become the first French team to win the European Cup.

    And I mention this, Mr President, because I know of your own footballing interest, Paris St Germain’s most ardent supporter in many ways, and I think very pleased at their recent victory in the final of the European Cup Winner’s Cup. It is not every football fan who can receive his team at the Elysee Palace to congratulate them upon their success. I only hope they look after you extraordinarily well when you are able to watch their home matches.

    May I just touch on one other thing briefly? No evening in the United Kingdom at the moment would be entirely complete without some mention of beef. We are not serving you beef this evening. But I would like to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to the President, and his colleagues in government, for their support over recent days and their very strong support in the progress that has been made in Brussels today. Some progress has been made today and I think there is every chance that will be carried a good deal further in the early part of next week, on Monday I hope of next week.

    We will be working hard, with the support we have had from France and from a number of other countries in the European Union, in carrying forward the progressive lifting of the ban that at present exists on British beef. I think that is merited and I look forward to that happening as speedily as possible. But for this evening I just want to take the opportunity publicly of thanking the President for his support privately, and his support publicly, so aptly demonstrated in the discussions in Brussels earlier today.

    And let me also add one other point. I would not wish to end this evening without paying a very genuine and heartfelt tribute to the President’s role in enhancing the relationship between France and the United Kingdom. I believe, as we meet here this evening, that it is as warm and as detailed, as friendly and as persuasive in all its aspects as it has been for very many years between our two countries. And a significant reason for that enhancement of our relationship is our guest this evening – the President of France – and I am most grateful to him for that.

    The toasts come later this evening. So let me simply end at the outset by welcoming you Jacques, and you Bernadette, as our guests here this evening at Hampton Court. I welcome you very warmly indeed on behalf of the British government and the British nation. And let me simply say this. I look forward to welcoming you back here and elsewhere in the United Kingdom on many occasions in the future. You are tonight amongst friends and I hope that you will enjoy the evening.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Prime Minister, my dear John, dear Norma. When history in fact brought our two countries together in the past it was very often on the battlefield. And here, like in France, the remnants of the past carry the imprint of past rivalry. And on the windows of this magnificent hall we can see in the middle of Henry VIII’s Coat of Arms the proud French cry of [indistinct] which was in fact the war cry of the Kings of France when they went into battle, very often against you.

    Now fortunately times have changed and there is a great feeling of solidarity which presides over the cooperation between our two countries, and it is that same feeling that is very present in my heart today when I am with you here, John, in this magnificent hall, in the middle of my State Visit to Britain.

    Her Majesty The Queen expressed this with great talent when she said that it is true that we don’t drive on the same side of the road, but it is also true that we go in the same direction.

    The very warm welcome that we have received in Great Britain, my wife and myself, I think bears witness to the very strong friendship that now bonds our two peoples together. The very gracious hospitality extended to us by Her Majesty The Queen, and our meeting with Her Majesty The Queen Mother, which I found extremely moving, and with members of the Royal Family, have in fact given us the most unforgettable moments which will remain engraved in our memories.

    During my visit to Parliament, and during the numerous talks that I have had with political leaders and with yourself in particular, Prime Minister, I was able to measure how very much our views and our interests converge, and how very much we share the same ambitions, to build a Europe that should be dynamic and prosperous, respectful of national identities, and to build together a world that should be better, with more justice, more tolerance, more humane.

    I met with the business leaders in the Guildhall and I noted the remarkable potential for innovation and development of British and French enterprises and how very successful they can be when they work together, which I very much encourage them to do.

    These conversations, and the contacts I have had, have strengthened my conviction, which is that France and Great Britain, which are great powers, that both have considerable prestige and international influence, and a remarkable capital you might say of talent and know-how, these two countries must cooperate more together.

    As Winston Churchill said, more or less, history has in fact forged between our two peoples unshakeable, unbreakable bonds that cannot be undone. We have fought together for many centuries. Now we must give each other as much support as we possibly can. And that, my dear John, is the frame of mind which is mine at present and I know that you share these feelings.

    My dear John, we have known each other for a number of years and you have been good enough to give me your friendship, and I have done likewise. The affection – I think I can say – that exists between us, our affinities, are this deep attachment that we share for our cultures, our national traditions, all this gives a special dimension to our working relationships. And personally I quite honestly take great pleasure in this. It is very pleasant to be able to work with someone in this spirit of trust and friendship.

    I think we should say perhaps something also about the subject that is unmentionable, or wasn’t to be mentioned today, in other words beef. But you have broken the tryst, my dear John, and the contract therefore, may I say simply that I am surprised that there is no fillet de boeuf on the menu.

    And could I say that I very much hope that we will be able to strengthen something which is in the very nature of things, in other words a very strong bond of friendship between France and Great Britain.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

    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. Arnold: During his busy evening, did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to watch television last night, as an interesting broadcast demonstrated conclusively that people get better value for their council tax from Conservative councils? Does he not think that people will get better value by voting Conservative today?

    The Prime Minister: They can certainly see that, by voting Labour in the past, they have had to pay high council tax. Southwark, Islington, Wellingborough and probably any Labour authority one can mention has had a significantly higher council tax in the previous year, and a higher tax than a comparable Conservative authority. That is the nature of the Labour beast–vote for it, and then pay for it.

    Mr. Blair: What most people recall is that they did vote for the Conservative party and they did pay for it, with 22 tax increases.

    However, is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that the cattle slaughter scheme would be fully operational today? In view of the widespread reports of confusion from all around the country today, can he give a factual account of what is happening?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the information should now be available to people. My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the National Farmers Union with details of the scheme, and information was published in the farming press last week. Guidance on the scheme was distributed on Monday evening to the abattoirs and markets that have been designated to operate it. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear yesterday, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue detailed guidance to farmers, and that will be sent out tomorrow. In the meantime, the Intervention Board and MAFF are operating a helpline to provide information to farmers, and that will continue throughout the weekend.

    Mr. Blair: Is not the difference between theory and practice the problem here? The scheme is supposed to be operational today, but does not appear to be operational in many parts of the country. In particular, people are saying, first, that there are insufficient collection centres; secondly, that there may be inadequate capacity for incinerating the carcases; and, thirdly, that many farmers appear to be in the dark both about the details of compensation and how it will operate. I know that this is difficult, but can the Prime Minister ask the Agriculture Minister to respond with even greater urgency to the situation, because at the moment the response appears pretty inept?

    The Prime Minister: I have already made my own inquiries to ensure that such information as is necessary is distributed and made available to farmers speedily. The scheme is large and will involve the slaughter of 15,000 to 20,000 animals a week. The scheme has been finalised and we moved immediately to ensure that farmers had the information they needed. Most of them should have. If some have not, the matter is now being examined and investigated, and I hope that farmers will have the information speedily.

    Sir Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter about the EC ban on British beef exports which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends sent yesterday to all the EC ambassadors in London? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to call in those ambassadors to ensure that they report accurately to their Governments on the great damage that is being done in terms of British confidence in the European Union as a result of the way in which the EC is handling the matter?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is already in touch with his fellow Foreign Ministers across the European Union. I share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend. The evidence shows that British beef is safe, as both the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner have acknowledged. I am delighted to see this afternoon that the Wimpy chain has lifted the ban on British beef with immediate effect and I have no doubt whatever that that is the right decision.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice: Three times on Tuesday the Prime Minister failed to give a direct answer to questions about discussions he had had with the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask him now whether he has ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the hon. Lady.

    Mrs. Prentice: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility that he would stand aside and allow his deputy to take over if, by tomorrow, Conservative party fortunes have not improved?

    The Prime Minister: The last Labour politician who was that smug about elections is now earning his living elsewhere in Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another vital election is about to take place–the one in Northern Ireland leading to negotiations on 10 June when the people of Northern Ireland will be able to decide their future for themselves through peaceful and democratic means? Does he agree that the time has come for the IRA to stop trying to coerce and blackmail the people of Northern Ireland and to abandon terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is no absolutely no credible reason for the IRA not to stop its violence immediately. The all-party negotiations will be serious and they will start on 10 June. Sinn Fein can play a part in them if there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire. In that case, Sinn Fein will find itself in the same position as other political parties. As I have said many times, the choice is for the IRA to make and I hope that it will make it. It will certainly gain nothing by waiting, still less by more violence, which can only call even further into question its readiness to adopt peaceful methods. Whether there is a ceasefire or not, the talks will go ahead.

    Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland right to refuse to distribute European Union posters on Europe day?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a very proud Scot and the flag that he wishes to see flying in Scotland is the Union flag–so do I.

     

    Q4. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the satisfaction in my constituency that unemployment has fallen to 4.5 per cent? Is he aware that there is particular satisfaction this week because Labour lost control of St. Edmundsbury borough council? Does my right hon. Friend share the view of the Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives that, underneath a thin veneer, all those tawdry old socialist instincts of Labour remain alive and well?

    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the lady concerned is a councillor with great insight. There is no doubt about what the fate is of those parts of the country that are unfortunate enough to have Labour councils: they pay higher council taxes. The 10 councils with the highest council tax are all Labour-controlled, and that is the message that every voter should remember. If voters want to pay an extra £225 a week on band D, all they have to do is to vote Labour, and it will be guaranteed.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic and monetary union is no threat to the nation state?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at what my right hon. and learned Friend has said–he would then not misrepresent him.

    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a misrepresentation to allege that Euro-realists urge that Britain leave the European Union? Does he agree that we have now reached a position at which we should be having a proper discussion in the intergovernmental conference on all the fundamental issues? As I said at the end of last year’s leadership contest, we should be talking to one another–in Europe and in the United Kingdom–rather than at one another.

    The Prime Minister: I am very much in favour of that type of dialogue. There is no doubt that it is the right position for the United Kingdom to play a leading role in the European Union, but it is equally right to say that that does not mean that we shall necessarily agree with our colleagues on many issues. We are as entitled to fight our corner and disagree as any other nation state in Europe.

    I intend to stay at the centre of the European debate, assessing, on each issue, what is best for the British national interest–in precisely the same way in which other heads of Government will assess what is right for their countries–and always arguing for the sort of Europe that the Government believe is right for the whole of Europe.

     

    Q6. Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Chisholm: Given the unsatisfactory replies given on bovine spongiform encephalopathy earlier to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), is it not time that we have a Government who are taken seriously in Europe? Will he condemn the infantile and counter-productive gesture politics of the Secretary of State for Scotland in refusing to allow the European flag to fly for one day next week?

    The Prime Minister: I answered that question some moments ago. I do not know quite where the hon. Gentleman was then, but the answer I gave then still stands.

    Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation and thanks of my constituents because the Government went further than they were originally prepared to go on the Housing Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, in giving special control provisions to local authorities to deal with the seedy bedsits and squalid landlords that were threatening our towns with decline and decay? Does he agree that those provisions will need political will and determination to be implemented effectively, and will he remind our voters of that as they go to the polls today?

    Mr. Mackinlay: He is not one of us.

    The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, nor, as my hon. Friend is a man of taste and discretion, would he wish to be one of them. As for the legislation that my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a problem in recent years with many people moving, particularly to seaside towns. It is right to have taken the measures that we have. I hope that those measures will stop the abuse of the social security system and the difficulties faced recently by many seaside towns.

     

    Q7. Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Beggs: Does the Prime Minister share the view of Fergus Finley, who thinks for Dick Spring, that if Sinn Fein does not attend the talks in Northern Ireland, the talks will be a waste of time? Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that the participation of democratic parties in the forthcoming talks will have influence?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. What we need to see in the forthcoming talks is the democratic parties meeting, talking and seeking to reach a position that will enable there to be agreement in Northern Ireland. I emphasise the point that it is for the democratic parties. If there is no credible, clear-cut and certain ceasefire, Sinn Fein in no sense can claim to be a democratic party and it will not be there, as other parties will.

     

    Q10. Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend seize this opportunity to remind the House once again that the superior management and policies of Conservative councils deliver better services and lower taxes for council tax payers–some £225 lower, I believe, for the average band D household?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. One only has to see the performance of Labour councils to illustrate it. I see that the shadow Environment Secretary is not here. If he were, he could explain why bad debts cost Camden tax payers £2.95 for every dwelling every week. Perhaps Opposition Members can explain why the highest band D council tax is in Labour Liverpool and why the highest amounts of council tax are in Labour Lambeth. I could stretch the list from here until next Tuesday, so bad and so inefficient are Labour councils.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Newspaper Society – 1 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Newspaper Society, held in London on Wednesday 1st May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Small section missing] What we see in our legislation is an environment in which the media thrives and is competitive without creating a monopolistic situation. I have to say to you it is a difficult balance to keep. I believe it is an intensely important balance in the democratic debate, but I don’t pretend to you that it is one that is readily obvious and one that can be achieved without a great deal of discussion and thought. For what we are seeking to do in Cross Media Ownership provisions is to exploit new opportunities and new technologies while ensuring that we protect diversity. Of course we have listened to the representations we have had by the regional press and national press on the subject of ownership, and we will continue to listen to them. We sought to lift controls which restrict the growth of vibrant media companies. All over the United Kingdom, companies, whether national or local, are finding themselves in a more competitive environment than any they have ever faced in the past. We seek to reflect that across a whole range of legislation and to try and find a more favourable environment than ever before for the newspaper industry, and indeed every other industry to operate.

    One thing I am sure of, the press expect the government to protect their freedoms, and if I may say so, sometimes under some provocation we have sought to do precisely that – to ensure that the press is free and unfettered to carry out its proper goal in the democratic debate. Not for us the veiled threats that if the press misbehave at the next general election they can expect curbs. Others may make those threats, indeed have done, we certainly don’t. And I think also it is well worth people looking at the commitment to put the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law, because a careful examination of that will show you that the voluntary code on press complaints could be replaced by regulations by courts, were that to be incorporated into domestic law.

    Now of course changes in the newspaper industry were essential, are essential, and I have no doubt will continue to be essential in the future because of the competitive market in which you operate. Old jobs, hallowed, dignified by tradition are suddenly overtaken by an entirely new way of doing things. Every day in the House of Commons l face appeals to fear of change, fear of a change, appeals which want to ignore change, that want to stop it and always itches to control it.

    I must say to you, I believe that although that may sometimes be good politics in the short-term, it is bad statesmanship. Unless this country actually faces the need for change – unpopular and uncomfortable though it may be for governors and governed alike – unless we actually meet those changes, face those changes and make those changes, we will not provide a business environment for the present, or for the future, in which British industry and commerce can survive and thrive. And I believe we have to make those changes, however difficult they may be.

    Labour have a new language these days, the pretentious language of ‘stakeholding’. I have to say to you, and I do not believe I am alone in this, that I am not entirely sure what it means or what it amounts to. It does seem to me to be a retreat into some cosy world of the past, that our future will only be bright if we look at the future, make the changes that are necessary, uncomfortable though they may often be, in order that industry and commerce can seize the opportunities that undoubtedly are there. And that can be done.

    Your industry perhaps above all, both nationally and locally, your industry is a classic example of how we embrace change with confidence. What we have seen in the last decade or so is an extraordinary burgeoning of new titles, new media companies, and whole new media industries.

    Information, education, communication – they are some of the key watchwords of the future. And we in Britain are uniquely well placed to take advantage of these global changes. The liberalisation of the whole telecommunications industry, the massive asset of the English language – all of this shows why your industry and across the economy as a whole, we can make Britain the Enterprise Centre of Europe, an increasingly effective and efficient force on the international business environment.

    We are now, as we meet here today, within a year of a General Election. And I believe as we get closer to that election people will increasingly wish to focus on the substance of the political debate. And I emphasise the substance. The important questions about substance and about policy are really very straight forward. Will it work? Does it make sense? Does it add up? Will we be better off, or worse off, if we take this particular route? How does this policy or that policy actually affect our national interests?

    They are the key questions and what we, the politicians, and what you, the media, must ensure is that those issues and principles are properly set out, exposed and challenged as well. Those questions affect our future. They deserve an answer from the politicians, and not just evasions.

    But I say “politicians and media” have a responsibility because I believe we both do. And let me explain to you why I say that. We have as sophisticated an electorate in this country as in any country in the world – sophisticated. But even so, these days it is often an uphill struggle to engage in rational detailed debate about contentious issues.

    The simple problems are gone. The complex problems remain and they are very difficult. They are very difficult to solve and they are very difficult to report fully and accurately as well. They need background and they need explanation.

    We are all familiar with the simplistic headlines. I have even heard there are politicians who talk in sound-bites in the hope that they might possibly become headlines.

    But there are two concerns that I would not be surprised if you shared with me. The first is over-simplification of important issues; and the second is too much emphasis on what is wrong and too little acknowledgement of what is right.

    I think that one of the great advantages of the written word is the opportunity to explain issues in greater depth. News clips on television and radio are very important, but they can rarely do proper justice to a complex detailed issue. It is impossible to conduct a serious political issue and then interpret it in a simple headline, impossible to address a complex issue in a brief clip on the 6 o’clock news.

    Let me paint a thought. I speak for 40 minutes on the intricacies of education and I set out a whole series of detailed policies. On the 5.40 or 6 o’clock television news there will be 1 minute of my speech and probably a contentious bit, 1 minute of my 40 minutes; it will be followed most probably by 1 minute of Mr Blair, who hasn’t read the speech; 1 minute of Mr Ashdown, who hasn’t understood the speech; and a 2 minute explanation by someone of what it was I meant by what it was I said. Of course the Prime Minister was talking about education, but what he meant was that he wanted to distract you from divisions in the party over European policy.

    That does not advance the democratic debate very much. And as for documentaries, they tend to follow after the event and are often broadcast at inconvenient times and to small audiences.

    But for the written press, national and local, a different set of criteria apply. I believe that the media has a very important duty in the exercise of our essential freedoms, to inform debate upon important issues, to raise public awareness and to inform our society.

    There is a problem that I would like to share with you and I hope you will accept that I am seeking to share it with you because I believe it is something that together we need to address.

    These days in our complex society with our complex problems, there is a tendency for people and their views to get labelled for ease of recognition. There is a tendency for the arguments to be over-simplified to the extent that they are only reported as if in code. It is left wing, or right wing, it is Europhile or Eurosceptic. We all know the code. I would like to alert everyone to the danger, and the danger is the short-changing of the public of what the true opinions and positions of their politicians are on important matters of national concern.

    But let me try and give you an example of what I mean. I believe it is the government’s job, any government, it is their job to weigh up the issues and to take action in what it judges to be the best long term interests of the country. Of course many will disagree with their conclusions, they may disagree, that is part of the debate but it ought not to dictate the agenda and certainly it won’t dictate mine. As Prime Minister I must speak for the national interest as I see it – and I will, whatever the noises off may be and from wherever the noises off may come.

    Let me take the European debate for a moment. I believe strongly that Britain can and does benefit from being in Europe. If we were to stand back and contemplate what our position might be had we not been opening up the European market over the last quarter of a century, I think you would begin to see precisely what I mean.

    But at the same time, whilst I have not a shred of doubt that we should be in the European Union fighting for the sort of European Union we want, we need to have the confidence to defend our interests and our rights as a nation state within the European Union.

    It has many frustrations, but it is in our interest, beyond a doubt, to be a part of it and seek to shape it. It is not in our interests to be on the side of it and leave the shaping of future policy, in whatever sphere it may be – social or monetary – to other people, then leaving us with decisions that they have made with which we have to live. That in my judgment is not a position for a proud, important, independent, democratic nation to find itself in. And that is why I believe we need to be in the centre of the European debate and express our views.

    But we are there to express our views and that means we can reject – as I do – any further moves towards political integration in Europe. It is important that a rational common sense European debate does not get obscured by over-simplification for the search for political drama.

    I know that in saying what I have just said to you that this view does not neatly fit into those simplistic boxes – Europhobe or Europhile. And because I occasionally make speeches that don’t fit into those simplistic boxes, it is all too easy to claim that what I am saying is just a balancing act with all the indications of compromise that that implies. I bluntly reject that interpretation. I am against communism. I am against fascism. That doesn’t mean I compromise as a Conservative. I am a Conservative because I believe in conservatism, and I take a middle of the road view on European matters because I believe our national interest requires us to be in Europe, not to take an extreme view, anti-European or fanatically pro-European, but to fight my corner in the interests of my country in the European debate.

    I don’t think that is a lack of conviction, I think that is an understanding of what is in the interest of the vast majority of people in this country and it is right for me to fight for those and not to be pushed to one edge or another edge of a vitally important debate for this country, and I have no intention of being so.

    But if you need to carry out your agenda, whether in Europe or elsewhere, the first ingredient for any government is to produce a stable economy. And I would like to say to you today that I think we have produced a more promising series of economic prospects for this country than we have literally known for generations. I know in the clamour of daily drama this can so easily be overlooked, but let me just set out some of the points to illustrate what I am saying.

    As we meet here today for this excellent luncheon, we have the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years; the lowest tax burden of any major European economy; the lowest unemployment of any major European country; the longest period of low inflation for 50 years; we get more foreign investment in this country than any other country in Europe, and almost as much as the rest of Europe put together; our industry exports per person more than Japan or the United States; and we have seen fewer days lost in strikes since records began. And if one turns to social changes: we have invested more in pensions than the rest of Europe added together; and we now have one in three of our young people entering higher education, where it was only one in eight 15 years ago.

    I have set out those points. I have to say to you that if I had come to you on the eve of the last general election and said I am going to come back in May 1996 and I will have achieved all those changes, there is not a single journalist or proprietor here who would have believed that that would actually have been achieved. But it has been, and the fact that it has been makes a profound difference to the backdrop of policy for the future and it is the backdrop to the agenda that I will put before the country at the next General Election.

    That agenda that I care about is a very down to earth agenda but I think it is a very realistic agenda. It sees the world as it is and it seeks to improve it. It is not pipedream dressed up as rhetoric. It is about trusting people and giving individual choice and opportunity to them, not having it exercised by government, national or local. It is about encouraging enterprise for the simple reason that governments cannot create jobs. We can set a framework in which enterprise can create jobs, but not if we hamstring it in the decisions that it has to make. And so we need to encourage enterprise and let it loose to create jobs, prosperity and security for the future.

    There are people who think they are helping jobs by preserving old jobs with artificial legislation. I say they are wrong and what they actually do is inhibit the provision of new jobs that will last and extra efficiency and competitiveness for this country.

    I have an agenda about maintaining respect for the rule of law and for ordinary common decency. I believe that up and down this country the people to whom you sell your newspapers, they are decent, straight forward, common sense people and they cry out to see that defended nationally and locally by their politicians and by their opinion formers and I believe that is precisely the business that we should be in.

    We need to care for the way that people are treated by the public services. I come from a background where the public services were very important to my family and I learnt at a very young age the arrogance of so much of the public service, the arrogant belief that because it was funded by the taxpayer and provided free at the point of delivery, that one didn’t have the same rights as a consumer of that service that one would have had if you were paying cash on the nail. For I passionately disagree with that. We don’t pay cash on the nail for our public services, we pay cash in advance in taxes, compulsorily extracted from our incomes, in order to provide that public service and we have every right to demand of it the very best service that can be provided.

    And I think we need to re-assess and speak more frequently about the pride and respect that our country deserves, about our national institutions and about our values. Those are issues that will be at the core of the next General Election and they are issues upon which I will be comfortable to fight.

    One of the most ill-judged criticisms of recent years has been those commentators who have said: “But there is very little difference between the political parties”. Now it is true that a number of parties ape traditional Tory sentiments these days, and they do that because they know that that is what appeals to the innate instinct of the British nation. But the policy issues, the actions that will be carried out in government that would affect you and all the people who read your newspapers, those differences are very real.

    And let me tell you the differences I mean. The different approaches to public expenditure, where it is clear that the Opposition would spend far more and where their plans don’t remotely add up to the income they are likely to have. The difference between our philosophical belief as Conservatives in low taxes, and our opponents’ hidden agenda of raising taxes, whether through axing child benefit, taxing company cars, or raising the rate for anyone who earns as much income as Clare Short.

    There are different approaches throughout the political agenda, different approaches to employment. My approach is to create jobs through enterprise, not to damage enterprise by adding extra social costs to employers to inhibit their capacity to employ.

    The difference between the action that we have taken to improve standards and choice and information in education, and the action all our political opponents have taken, which has been to oppose everything we have done to improve standards, to enlarge choice or to dispense information to parents.

    I believe in choice in education. Our children are not all of a kind. We need a rich variety of choice to match the individual needs of our children. And I don’t have a shred of hesitation in saying that that will certainly include an extra element of selection where that is the demand of parents and where that is the wish of school governing bodies.

    And then there are differences in our approaches to crime, where we have produced measure after measure and had to force them through the House of Commons against the votes of our opponents time and time again.

    And then perhaps, at this moment, the greatest debate of all. The implication of the Opposition’s policies at home and in Europe for the constitution and the stability of the United Kingdom.

    Let me turn firstly to the plans for devolution and other constitutional tinkering. I won’t mince my words about that. I believe that if we were to have a tax-raising parliament in Scotland, that we would have taken a giant step towards dismantling the United Kingdom as we see it today. These policies are not thought through. How can it be right for Members of Parliament at a Scottish Parliament to vote upon matters that affect Scotland, and then go down to England and vote upon the same matters affecting England, where English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would have no say in what happens in Scotland? How can it be right to leave over-representation in Scotland where they have a tax gathering Assembly? How can it be right for a disproportionate amount of public expenditure to continue to flow to Scotland if they are to have their own tax-gathering Assembly?

    And what have the Scots done, what dreadful crime have they committed, that they should be invited to pay at least an extra 3p in the pound in taxation? I have a great affection for the Scots, I listen to them whenever I have the opportunity, and I have never heard them say to me yet: “I would like to pay an extra 3p in the pound in taxation”.

    When our opponents say: “We might reduce taxation in Scotland”. Really? Well that would be a novelty, for Labour to reduce taxation anywhere would be a novelty. But for Labour to reduce taxation on the basis of a disproportionate amount of public expenditure coming out of the rest of the United Kingdom would not be possible. The fact is taxes would rise in Scotland and there would be great disunity between Scotland and the United Kingdom.

    And what would happen at some stage in the future, and if possible, perhaps probable, that the Separatist Party in Scotland won the elections for the Scottish Assembly? Would not the Scottish Nationalists regard this as a mandate for separation? That is the basis of their programme. Of course they would. And what would be the position between a Scottish Parliament in which a party demanding separation had just got the majority, and an English parliament perhaps peeved and concerned that they were pouring extra expenditure into Scotland? What sort of division and break would come about from those policies?

    Now I am not seeking to make a cheap political point. If one wishes to talk politics, we don’t have as many seats as the Labour Party in Scotland by quite a margin, if I wanted to play political advantage I would say let Scotland go, I will be 40 seats to the better if I let Scotland go. But I say no. The United Kingdom would be weaker if it began to break up and we lost Scotland. I would rather have Scotland, even with its extra Labour and Scottish Nationalist seats, than see it divide. We Tories are on a high point of principle with our policy about Scotland and we will try and make sure that this is a central part of the next General Election because a United Kingdom that is divided and broke up would not only mean a weaker Scotland, it would mean a weaker United Kingdom as a whole and it must not be permitted to happen.

    And then of course there are divisions in policy between ourselves and our opponents on Europe. I think it is interesting to look not at the divisions within the parties, of course there are divisions within my party and divisions within the Labour Party. Fifty Labour members recently produced a manifesto that was tantamount to saying let us leave the European Union and have nothing whatever to do with it. So there are those divisions across politics, let us enter into serious debate and acknowledge that.

    But there are also very substantial differences between the political parties on European policy. The Labour Party would centralise power in Europe. We would not. The Labour Party would accept the social chapter. We would not. Labour would accept more qualified majority voting. We would not. Labour say they will never be isolated in Europe. We know you sometimes have to be isolated in Europe if you are going to stand up for Britain’s national interests. If Margaret Thatcher hadn’t been isolated we would never have had the rebate. If I hadn’t been isolated, I would have lost the rebate in the Maastricht negotiations. I can tell you now there wasn’t another friend around that table who wanted Britain to retain her rebate from her European contributions which is worth literally billions to us. So you have to be isolated in Europe, you have to stand up in it.

    We will seek changes to the Common Fisheries Policy. We don’t know what Labour’s policy is. We will seek changes to the European Court of Justice which is now seeking to change what the law is rather than interpret the law, most recently in the working time directive, but we don’t know what Labour’s policy is. We would have a referendum on a single currency if we decided to enter it. We don’t know what Labour’s policy is.

    Now these are deep fundamental differences between the two major political parties at Westminster. That is the real debate. It is an important debate. But let us engage in what the real debate is in politics and not so much of the fantasy debate that we have seen over the last few months.

    I will fight that election when it comes on the sharp differences between the parties and upon the issues that I believe matter most to the people of this country. And let me make this point to you. The economic changes we have seen, and the change in our economic prospects, will give unparalleled opportunities after the next general election to the government, opportunities that can be used in different ways, opportunities to change and shape our country that have not been there in recent years while we have been building our present economic strength as we have come out of the recession. The way in which those opportunities are used would be sharply different between the main political parties at Westminster.

    I will use those opportunities in a way that will make them predominantly available to individuals and their families, predominantly available to the people. I believe they should have the first choice about how to make decisions that affect themselves, their families, their future and their interests. I don’t believe that will be the first choice of either of our main political opponents.

    And as we come to the election, we need to focus on those choices. Whatever the outcome of that election is to be, it ought to be an outcome determined upon the basis of what genuinely matters to the people up and down this country. And that is not a froth and bubble of every day disputes, it is the fundamental issues that affect the future of this country constitutionally and the way in which people live their lives within it.

    I believe we are right to lift the eyes of the nation to the opportunities that now lie ahead of us. It is time to rekindle the self-confidence that too often has been at a very low ebb in the last few years. We need to rise above the tendency to be negative, we need to recognise how far this country has come, and more importantly precisely what this country is poised to achieve if it has the courage and the imagination to take the opportunities that lie immediately in front of them.

    We have perhaps the best opportunity in front of us that we have had for generations. We need to take it, not throw it away, not dissipate it, not lose it by even failing to realise that it is there.

    I have a determination that Britain will become the Enterprise Centre of Europe. That is not just a slogan, it has hard-edged policy behind it. It is a statement of economic philosophy and a statement of belief, a belief that a free enterprise, low tax Britain can ride high as a global trading nation and win markets in every part of the world.

    But we do need to get the balance right. By we I mean we the politicians, not only you the media. We need to get that balance right. It is no good talking ourselves down as a country and neither in my opinion is it remotely justified. This is a great nation, it doesn’t have an empire, but it is a nation of importance and influence, with standards and values that most nations in the world still look at with some envy and with very great respect.

    Let us realise what we are and stop down-playing what we have done. We need, in my judgment, a proper measure of optimism and self-confidence to fire the enthusiasm and enterprise we need to take on the challenges of tomorrow. That I think is the debate that lies ahead of us. That I can tell you with every fibre of my being is the debate that I believe we should be having in this country at the moment. It is a debate of immense importance, it is a debate I look forward to with relish, and it is a debate I believe that I will win.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Helmut Kohl – 29 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, held in London on Monday 29th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to welcome Helmut to the United Kingdom, he is a very welcome guest and we have had, as we always do, some useful and wide-ranging talks on a number of issues most of which I will set out for you in the next few moments.

    Apart from detailed matter, of course we looked at wider strategic matters as well. We looked at the future development of the European Union; there are many areas in there where we are of a mind and some where we have differing visions but nonetheless we took the opportunity to examine those yet again this morning.

    Of immediate and contentious matters, of course we spent some time discussing the particular difficulties that there are in the beef market in the United Kingdom and of course in the beef markets right across Europe. We discussed both the problems and the prospects for the Agriculture Council meeting today that perhaps will extend into tomorrow. The Agriculture Council of course cannot make decisions on this matter, it can only make recommendations for subsequent decision. I indicated that what we are looking for out of these discussions are some positive signals of support for relaxing the ban that at present exists; certainly we are looking for specific movement on the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and related matters and I indicated to the Chancellor that I hoped that would receive some support.

    There is a great deal occurring today in Brussels both in discussions and in bilateral contacts between the United Kingdom and our European partners and I hope we will be able to achieve some movement on this matter before long.

    We also took the opportunity this morning of looking again at the sheer scale of the commercial relationship between the United Kingdom and Germany. There has also at the same time this morning been a meeting between leading businessmen in British/German trade and they joined the Chancellor and I for a pre-luncheon reception.

    Britain is now Germany’s second-largest market around the world, Germany is Britain’s largest market for visible exports and a very important source of invisible earnings. There is a great deal of interdependence between our two economies, a very large number of German firms established here in the United Kingdom and a large number of British firms established in Germany. The trade flow between our countries is very large indeed and the mutual commercial interest is very great.

    On European matters, as we look forward to the inter-governmental conference, we discussed in particular subsidiarity, that is to say ensuring that decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and not automatically at the European level; we discussed the prospects for better employment across Europe and for enlargement of the European Union and on these matters we have asked our staffs to work together very closely so that we may concert positions that are very close.

    On competitiveness and deregulation the same circumstance applies: we are both concerned to improve competitiveness, we are both concerned to improve deregulation and there will be a high-level seminar on competitiveness later on in the summer.

    We talked about the prospects for monetary union. We do have differences in enthusiasm about that and an agreement upon the importance of the economic criteria before such a step could be taken and agreement that those economic criteria would need to be sustained. The British position is I think well understood by the Chancellor and we had an opportunity to discuss it this morning.

    We both agree very strongly on the need to sustain the transatlantic partnership and have decided to establish a new trilateral United Kingdom/Germany/United States-parliamentary forum. We think the importance of keeping the parliamentary opinion of these three countries in concert is extremely important both in the short and the long term.

    We discussed foreign affairs and followed up on our brief discussions at Moscow. We talked also about Moscow and about my visit to Ukraine.

    We discussed also Bosnia where the cooperation between Britain and Germany is excellent and where we have a joint view of present developments and a joint understanding of what we hope will be achieved later in the year.

    Defence cooperation with Germany continues to be both deep and wide-ranging.

    We discussed the prospects for the North Atlantic Council foreign ministers meeting in Berlin in June where one of the key themes will be the adaptation of NATO structures to deal with the evolving and changing nature of NATO.

    We also discussed the question of NATO enlargement where British and German views are very close indeed.

    We discussed also a number of other bilateral matters and in particular the joint wish that we set in train a couple of years ago to ensure that there were greater exchanges between young Britons and young Germans, one to the other’s country, to improve greater understanding for the future.

    We had a very wide-ranging discussion indeed which was conducted in the friendly spirit that I have come to expect in discussing matters, even contentious matters, with the Chancellor and I am delighted that we were able to have such a fruitful meeting.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me, if I may, to first of all use this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister most sincerely for the very warm hospitality with which we have been received, I myself and the members of my delegation, here in Downing Street. It is one of these visits that is part of our ordinary exchange of opinions but using the word “ordinary” does not actually correspond to the reality. It is more like a visit between very good friends because the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany is an excellent one and the personal relationship between the Prime Minister, my friend John Major, and myself is excellent and because friendships between politicians and those who are responsible in politics do not automatically remove problems, I have never been under that kind of illusion. That may be true but on the other hand such a personal relationship – such a good chemistry as the Americans put it – between two people certainly helps to smooth the way a little bit, even in those cases where one may be of different opinions and it was actually purely a matter of chance but also a good occasion for me here at this Round Table because it afforded us a good opportunity to meet with representatives of the business communities of the two countries and the Prime Minister underlined once again how close, how useful, how important, particularly the economic relationship between the two countries is and in my statement to the Round Table I said that after all British Officers launched the initiative for the Hanover Trade Fair that now has become the largest industrial fair in the world and I was very pleased to learn that next year, the jubilee year of the Hanover Fair, the United Kingdom will be the partner country of the Hanover Fair and I think we have every occasion to turn this into a big bash celebrating the friendship that has evolved between our two countries and business communities over the years and this meeting between the two business communities has actually also served to underline once again that we are here on a very good course in further intensifying our economic relationship and our exchange of views. I must say that from our talks today I took away a number of hints as to where we can come to improvements.

    We talked about a number of issues that are of mutual interest. We exchanged views during this admittedly rather short meeting about a number of issues. We also mentioned obviously the governmental conference on Maastricht 2 which was, as you know, inaugurated in Turin and we talked about further developments. I must say that it is of tremendous importance to me that we should cooperate as closely as possible with our British friends in this particular stage of European integration and we talked in very concrete terms about how matters are developing and I would like to say this here most clearly because sometimes I read in the British papers the exact opposite. I would like to state quite clearly what my position is exactly.

    I am a champion – and a fervent one at that – of building this house of Europe at the turn of this particular century that has seen such great suffering, that we should make room in this European house for our partners and friends in Europe and that we should make room on a sort of permanent lease for our American friends. It is unimaginable for me that this common European house might be one house where the United Kingdom does not have a firm position and its place.

    I know that internally you have a lot of discussions going on here in the United Kingdom and certainly here would not be the place nor the time for me to barge into that but there are voices I sometimes hear in public here that there are people over there in Europe who want to push the British out of Europe. This is absolutely not the case and it does become any more true because people repeat it. I will certainly not act for a Europe where the British do not have their firm place and position but I do think that in building this European house we should bear in mind the different traditions, different historical developments, different geographical situations and also the different kind of roads that we have to travel to get to these goals and this is why I say it is so important that we should bear each other’s interests in mind, that we should not enter into an almost theological debate where we say we have the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the others are completely wrong in what they say but that we should come to a working together and cooperation that is characterised by common sense and I am very much persuaded that then we shall have a great opportunity to make headway, to take a big step forward. Obviously, there are areas where we have different opinions the British and German governments, and there are areas where we are very close together.

    With the European Union we may have a different opinion as regards the two of us and the other partners on subsidiarity for example. That is a word that I know many people simply do not understand the way we interpret it. I would define it in a very simple way. I would say that when building this common European house – using now Brussels as a synonym for the European Union – I think we should opt for Brussels taking only those decisions that can be taken at that level and can then benefit citizens the best and decisions that can better be taken on a national level, for example in London, Paris and then later on in Berlin, those should be taken on that particular national level and those decisions that are best taken at a regional level – in Germany for example on the level of the Laenders – should be taken on that particular level. That is an issue that obviously we need to elaborate on a little bit further and in Maastricht 2 we will also have to ask a question as regards the [indistinct] local authorities in the European Union.

    I only mention these few examples to illustrate that I do see very good chances for coming to a common kind of position and that I will tenaciously hold to the view that this is indeed a policy which is not aiming at isolating anyone but that this is a policy which serves as a policy of rapprochement of the British, of the French, the Italians and all the other partners in the European Union.

    I don’t want to go into another issue now at length but I think I should raise it at least, BSE. I think that today and tomorrow, from what we have heard, the Agriculture Council will discuss the proposals submitted by the British Government and I think that those proposals should be then discussed as quickly as possible by the Veterinary Committee of the European Union and I would wish for the Agriculture Committee not leaving matters at that tomorrow but coming to a decision as quickly as possible.

    I am very much looking forward to your questions and since you are very often writing about me, I would even more welcome you writing about me when I am actually here to answer your questions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Chancellor Kohl, you have frequently said that Europe cannot afford to travel at the pace of the slowest ship in the convoy. Have you persuaded the British ship, in your talks with Mr. Major today, to move any faster?

    Can I ask the Prime Minister whether he and Chancellor Kohl have agreed that there should be any relationship between countries which stay out of an inner-core single European currency, any exchange rate mechanism to link those who stay outside and those who form any inner core?

    Finally, could I ask Chancellor Kohl if he did eat beef for lunch today?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Just as my friend John Major, I had indeed beef for lunch and I ate it and I think that was probably the underlying purpose for this press conference – to answer your question!

    What you have said by way of your second question you quoted me correctly but then automatically transposed that to the United Kingdom. This was not my meaning, that was your opinion from the BBC. I did not automatically declare the United Kingdom to be the slowest ship in the convoy which is why I cannot give you an answer to that question.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me pick up those points.

    We had an excellent luncheon.

    As far as the slowest ship in the convoy is concerned, I am delighted that the Chancellor was able to respond to that because it isn’t the only occasion where a remark like that has been wrenched out of context domestically and there has been an assumption that it was the United Kingdom that was in either the Chancellor’s mind or whosoever may have made such a remark in the European Union. That isn’t the case. Indeed, one of the things the Chancellor and I have been discussing today is the desirability – the necessity – of a more flexible approach to Europe as Europe develops further and I think it is much to be hoped that people will appreciate that those are the sort of things that are under pragmatic and detailed discussion at the present time.

    We didn’t spend a great deal of time discussing the possibility of a fresh exchange rate mechanism, our finance ministers discussed that some time ago and I think the British position on that is well known and hasn’t changed so we didn’t spend any time particularly discussing that this morning. We did discuss the range of matters that I set out and the Chancellor set out.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I should perhaps mention and add to what the Prime Minister just said on this last point.

    We shall decide in the spring of 1998 on this matter and not a minute earlier and therefore I don’t think it makes a whole lot of sense to enter into philosophical debate on what may or may not happen. In my day-to-day life as a politician, I am in many cases forced to take certain decisions but in Germany too a new form of penitence seems to have evolved. In former times, usually you had your sin first and penitence later; today, you have penitence and also the sort of penalty first and then the sin but I am actually one of the old school for that matter.

    QUESTION:

    You are never enthusiastic about this kind of building and you showed a certain reservation about enthusiasm in European development when you made your statement just now. Can you enlarge on this a bit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that there is any doubt at all about the British wish to see Europe develop. What the main debate is about is the nature, pace and style and the purpose of the development and there is a great misunderstanding I think often in this country – partly it is linguistic, partly it is simply modes of expression – as to what is often meant by what is said by our European partners. The Chancellor is here so he will want to add something to this.

    Often, when people talk about a “European house” in this country referring, to what has been said in Europe, there is an assumption that that European house is going to be centralised, that all the decisions are going to be taken at the centre and more and more is going to be sucked away from the nation state. That isn’t the sense in which it is frequently used.

    I cannot envisage a time in the future when the Germans aren’t Germans, the French aren’t French, the Italians aren’t Italians in all their instincts and the British aren’t British so I think we should actually look at what pragmatically we are discussing with the development of Europe.

    Where are the areas of development that are of importance? – The single market. Who were the proponents of the single market? The British and the Germans were the great proponents of the single market. What is another area of great development? Enlargement of the European Union in order to spread the opportunities that exist in a democratic free market further across Europe. Who were the great proponents of enlargement? The British and the Germans were the great proponents of enlargement. Who were the proponents of saying too much must not actually be centralised? You have just heard the Chancellor speak of subsidiarity; he and the British are very much at one upon those points.

    The area where there has been some difference is the question of a single currency and Germany are clear that Germany favours a single currency. I made it clear at Maastricht that we reserved our position on a single currency.

    We both want to see – if you wish to use the parlance – a European house, it is the nature of the construction that is a matter of legitimate debate and if I can make the point, it is a matter of debate. It is not a matter of artificial conflict as it is so often presented. Britain and Germany agree on many things, we disagree on some other things but I think I can say – and I think the Chancellor will confirm – that where we disagree we don’t disagree with animosity, we disagree because we both recognise that the other country has a legitimate point of view and to borrow the Chancellor’s comments of five minutes ago, different traditions and a different historical experience.

    In the discussions that I have had with the Chancellor and my European partners I have found that understanding. It doesn’t alter the fact that on some issues we have different policies but those differences aren’t the subject of unpleasant and nasty disputes. It is a question of how we develop in mutual interest and there will be differences about that and we will see those gradually solved as Europe develops.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me, if I may, just a brief remark on that particular issue. Let me be very frank with you. It is not a question that may be of any local importance from London or for Bonn, it is a Europe-wide issue. I don’t understand this discussion at all because it sometimes demonstrates an impatience that I find absolutely absurd. I remember my first EEC summit, as it was called then, in Copenhagen in 1982, at the time the word that was most widely used to characterise the European Community was Euro-sclerocis, a very bad disease that had befallen Europe. And now here had I in the December of that year been here in this room with you I would not have believed that we would have come so far as we have come and everyone told me at the time it will not work, the internal market won’t work, Maastricht 1 will never come about, and then all of a sudden the treaty was there, and then people said it will never be ratified.

    So again and again we overcame those hurdles and we did move forward and it is simply not true that we have taken too long. Just look at European history over the past 200 years and it is only then that you have a correct yardstick as to what sort of distance we have travelled.

    Let me mention one example where we do disagree, at least at this particular point in time. For example on the issue of Maastricht II as regards intensification of our cooperation in the area of internal and justice matters, now if it were the case that we will not be able to come to some sort of conclusion in Maastricht II, would it be such a terrible thing if we were to find a formula that allows us to look at this matter again in let us say 5 years time. And then in the meantime we try to come to some sort of common decisions on an intergovernmental level. And these decisions will come, no matter what we may say now, at the very latest in 5 – 6 years there will be no European government that will be able to stand for elections and win the election shirking away from combating the threat from international crime and taking a defensive stand on it. And we will see that we will not make any headway on this particular issue on a purely national level. And it will be just the force of the situation as it stands at that time that we have to come to some sort of European-wide settlement. Obviously we have incredible amounts of drugs, for example, that are being brought into the European Union. This is not the fault of our police, but we have to come to a European-wide solution for that.

    So perhaps let us first of all come to some intergovernmental agreements. But it won’t be the end of the world for me. The decisive thing is let us make a move in this particular direction. And I am a pragmatist and it is rather a strange occurrence that it should be a German all of a sudden who opts for pragmatism because we have always been accused of doing exactly the opposite.

    So I am for a step by step approach and we shall make progress in one field and perhaps not in the other field, so well then there are areas where for the moment we will not make any headway at all, but this common European house will be built perhaps with different stages of development, but it will come about.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, I was interested in that last answer when you talked about internal discussion in this country, would you accept that some of the difficulties are driven by what people see as a relentless timetable towards EMU in the treaty, though Britain has its opt-out, and your own great enthusiasm for political union and that worries people here, and could that perhaps go slower as you suggest that other things might go slower? And Prime Minister, could you ever accept a situation where individual candidates, standing in election, could say in their individual addresses no to a single currency when that will not be your position in the main manifesto at the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the second question, I suggest you wait for the election. The government’s manifesto will be quite clear, our position on a single currency is quite clear. We have said repeatedly that we don’t have the information upon which to base a proper decision at this stage. It is the most important decision that anyone is going to take for very many years, it has to be right, the economics have to be right and it is folly to take a decision in advance of knowing what the circumstances may be, for a country with the trading tradition of this country and the importance of sterling at an international trading currency. So I don’t anticipate the problem that you refer to arising, I read about it in the press, I don’t anticipate it arising and I think the position we will set out in the manifest on a single currency is well known.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I must say I don’t see this, what you mentioned. Without this kind of planning, without this kind of timetable, we would have lagged significantly behind the sort of progress that we have achieved. Let me give you one example that applies to Ireland, but that actually in more ways than one applies to the rest of the European Union as well. Ten years ago, for example, I had a number of fights with Francois Mitterrand. It would have been inconceivable at the time that as regards the matter of convergence of economic policy we would have made the sort of headway that we have made, and the citizens in Europe, after all, have drawn a great benefit from that. I don’t know, as regards the EU average, as regards inflation, but I think generally in the UK it is between 2 – 3 percent, and I was told when I was a student at the university that this is virtually no inflation, and I think you have 2.3 or something, so that means it is the kind of social policy that is geared to those who have small incomes. So why don’t we talk about the positive results that this has yielded for individual citizens?

    QUESTION:

    Do you both think that you could win a referendum about the single currency in your countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we will have a referendum in this country if and when a British Conservative Cabinet decides to enter a single currency. If that were the case then we would clearly campaign for that. The answer, if you ask me whether we would win such a referendum today, is no we would not win such a referendum today, but then there is no prospect of us joining today so the situation does not arise.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    As far as I am concerned I have never been a great friend of this kind of democracy that is plebiscite because I am familiar with German history and up until 1933 it was not purely a coincidence that the fathers and mothers, as it were, of our constitution were very familiar with the Weimar Republic and later on very familiar with the concentration camps under the National Socialists who [indistinct] champions of democracy. And if we had this instrument in our constitution I would certainly not hesitate in using it, but if I use it for this particular area of politics I would have to use it for other areas of politics as well and I have great doubts whether that would actually lead and improve internal peace in our country because there are a number of issues, on for example immigration, that in many ways move people a lot in Germany and we don’t intend at all obviously to introduce that, it would mean changing our constitution and I have no intention of doing that. But if you ask me in concrete terms that if we held that, how would we decide, and I have no doubt at all that if we had this kind of referendum the majority of people who are well informed in our country would opt for it because they know that peace and [indistinct] of the 21st century depends on matters such as these.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, you have eaten British beef today and enjoyed it. Would you now tell the world clearly here today – eat British beef, it is safe and enjoyable?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I ate British beef but I am not a marketing manager for British beef. I said what is going on in the Commission and you don’t honestly expect me to say something like this, a sort of advertising slogan.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you both would it be possible for a member state of the EU to go on enjoying the market advantages while resisting any deepening or further integration of European institutions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I gave you the answer some time ago when I said we were talking about the problems that develop in the Community and the advantages of flexibility. The European Union is flexible now. There are a whole range of flexible instruments within the European Union. The two most obvious ones are the position of the Danes and the British, for example, on a single currency; the position of the British on the social chapter, but they are by no means the only illustrations. So the answer is yes.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t have this kind of concern, I don’t have the impression that we have this particular kind of problem that no-one wants to get into the European Union, quite the contrary, I think we have rather the opposite problem, there are so many who want to come at the same time, so I don’t share your concern. Actually the European Union seems to be one of the places to be in the world. If you don’t believe me, go to Tokyo, go to the Wall Street Bank of New York and ask them, to Latin America, other parts of this world, why do all of these people want to do business with the European Union, why at this conference that both of us attended in Bangkok only a few weeks ago meet with such interest – because we are the place to be.

    QUESTION:

    You said before that you would urge the Agricultural Commission to speed up the decision on the beef ban. Do you also respond to the Prime Minister’s request for help and support in a partial lifting of the beef ban?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t think it would be entirely fair, I mean I am standing here as the German Head of Government and I am not part of those negotiations. My colleagues therefore are meeting there in Brussels today and tomorrow, they intend to look at the British proposals, they will submit it to the Veterinary Committee in order to examine it. The only plea I have is don’t let matters stand as they are but do it as quickly as possible and then there will be a concluding session where we come to a decision. But I don’t think it would be in any way a reliable or very serious answer that I could give at this point in time. After all, the debate will take place tonight when the individual Agriculture Ministers meet on that matter.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, Douglas Hurd said at the weekend that you no longer believe in a European super state, I just wonder if you could confirm that analysis or not. And Prime Minister, on the matter that Mike Brunson raised, are you worried that some people in your own party are now using the alleged electoral threat by Sir James Goldsmith to have one last push at making you rule out a single currency in the next parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that point first. I think you must ask other people what their motives are. I have made the position clear. We will decide upon a single currency when it is necessary for us to decide upon a single currency and we are not going to do that precipitately. I know many people think it would be extremely convenient if I were to say now, no we are not going to do it. But I think in the national interest I need to see what the circumstances are, I need the British voice in the negotiations right up to the time when the decision is made. I don’t want the British voice to be excluded from those negotiations.

    Whether we in the event turn out to be part of a single currency, or whether we in the event say we will not be part of a single currency, what happens in the development of that currency is important to the national interest in this country. If our European partners proceed with it, it is not a matter that we can just ignore, it will have its implications not only for those countries but for every country right the way across Europe. And frankly, for a country of the size and influence of the United Kingdom to exclude itself from the most important economic debate that Britain has had for 50 years, and will have for 50 years, does not seem to me to be in the British national interest.

    So we will not exclude ourselves. We will make a choice when we are compelled to make a choice and then we will decide upon the basis of what we think is right for this country at that stage. So there will be no change in our position upon that point.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I am not familiar with this particular quote from Douglas Hurd’s speech. If I understood you correctly, you said that he had said I was no longer a proponent of the European super state. If this is actually what he said, I don’t quite understand how he can say something like that because I have never been a champion of a European super state, perhaps he has read it in one of your papers here but it has certainly never been an opinion of mine. For a time perhaps there have been a few misunderstandings, because we actually adopted a sentence out of Churchill’s Zurich speech, it is a very beautiful speech and a very beautiful phrase, but I think it was a bit misleading for our people. At the time I was 17 years old and he appealed to the Europeans, to the Germans, the French, but to the Europeans generally speaking that they should build these united states of Europe and perhaps that was a bit of a misleading kind of slogan. I used it for several years and the association obviously was that people thought we wanted to build the United States of America on European soil, but this is something that we never wanted and we have always said we remain Germans, we remain British, we remain Swedes, and this is different than being from Texas, from Oregon, from Minnesota or New York. This is a misleading kind of comparison even though it may be from Winston Churchill and may sound very nice.

    I actually gave a speech a few years ago at a party meeting that because it was misleading we should no longer use this particular expression. I said we are building the European Union and the European Union, and again I think this is a bit misleading perhaps and may lead to different interpretations between the British and the Germans and I did try to define what I mean by mentioning this image of a common European house. It simply cannot be a centralised state and even though the British and the Germans may be of exactly the same opinion as regards the approach, we talk about federalism and for many people here in Britain in what we understand as federalism means quite a different thing.

    What we understand when we speak about federalism is exactly what you want, but it is perceived differently here. We are saying on the level of the citizens, on the local level, on the land level in many areas of Europe, on a regional level, this is where decisions should be taken that can best be taken there, this is what we understand when we speak about federalism, it is exactly the opposite of a centralised state. I have always been a very fervent champion of federalism in Germany. I would hold that one of the most important, and then subsequently most positive decisions by the parliamentary assembly when they drew up our constitution and basic law was that they sort of tried to make room for the sort of variety that has always existed in Germany, that the Lander, that the Bavarian, the man from the north will find that he has left an imprint on the constitution and that they all are part of one whole. So I have certainly not said at any time that [indistinct] super state.

    First of all I would like to thank Douglas Hurd for actually mentioning me at all because it is after all always an advantage. I have never been a man who has been a champion of federalism. I have always been, in the German sense of the word, how we understand it, not how you British understand it, a federalist. And actually those who think alike here in the United Kingdom should be creative and come up with a different kind of expression that exactly says that – this building of a common European house. So thank you once again. I will read your leading articles and will see what you come up with.