The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Jacques Santer

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Phil Murphy, Press Association):

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

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    That was one of my shorter contributions.

    QUESTION:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    What are your current views on that?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I haven’t revised and updated mine.

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    SAME QUESTIONER:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

  • PMQT – 16 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

    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.

    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend join me and every other Member of the House in condemning the appalling scenes of violence and vandalism in Dublin last night? Does he agree that those people are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and an affront to football fans? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to prevent such behaviour from occurring again either at home or abroad?

    The Prime Minister: I agree that the behaviour of a thuggish minority at the match last evening was a disgrace and a great embarrassment. I do not believe that the people involved are sports fans, nor do I believe that they represent the true face of this country or British sport. The Football Association and the Irish Football Association have launched a full inquiry into exactly what happened and will discover what lessons can be learnt for the future. I have said that we will do everything we can to help to identify the people concerned and ensure that they face due punishment.

    Mr. Blair: May I, first, associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about the scenes of violence? Those people are not proper football fans, but criminals and thugs and should be treated as such.

    In today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that a single currency was a threat to the nation state. Is that the Prime Minister’s view: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to misunderstand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is saying. If he is so concerned about matters– [Interruption.] I note that the shadow Chancellor is chortling, but I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said:

    “I am not a fan of a single currency”

    and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said:

    “I personally am in favour of a single currency”.

    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to adjudicate between the two of them.

    Mr. Blair: I am delighted that the Prime Minister keeps asking me questions; it will put him in good practice. Let me make him an offer: instead of the twice weekly Prime Minister’s questions, one day a week we will move over to the Government Benches and then the right hon. Gentleman can ask me questions.

    Let me just bring the right hon. Gentleman back to my question: it is his Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said in clear terms that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state. Does he agree or not?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman– [Hon. Members:– “Answer.”] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman in my own way. He would be better advised to address himself to his own party and his own position. The right hon. Gentleman said in his own election address that he was opposed to British membership of the European Union. Then, later, he actually said:

    “I wasn’t actually opposed to membership”–

    and he went on to say–

    “I said . . . within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe.”

    What is the right hon. Gentleman now saying within the closed doors of the Labour party and why will he not say it in public?

    Mr. Blair: I think we can see why the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet for a vow of silence on this issue. One simple question remains for him to answer: if he cannot trust his Cabinet or his Chancellor on these critical economic and foreign policy issues, why on earth should the people of Britain trust him or the Government to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in public what he said in private, why should anybody trust the Opposition? The Government have made it clear that we will decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances whether it is appropriate to join a single currency. The Cabinet is utterly united on that point and it reinforced that unity this morning, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of rail passengers, which were enhanced so much by the Government’s recent proposals, will be put at risk by the actions of the rail unions? Does he agree that those very unions are threatening to support clause IV against Opposition reformists, and does he have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition will renounce those unions?

    The Prime Minister: I really do not know what he will do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems very keen to answer questions. I wish that some day he would try it, because if he did, it would be the first time yet in his career. I think that the aim of rail privatisation will undoubtedly be maintained, and it is to improve the quality of rail service. I hope that the need to improve the rail service does not escape the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has been summoned to his sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, to explain why the Opposition want to scrap clause IV.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Childish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish. He says that they do not want to scrap clause IV. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Back Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Watson: Given the unambiguous statements yesterday by the President of the European Commission on European Union internal passport controls and the creation of a single European currency, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed in Brussels last July that Jacques Santer is the right man in the right place at the right time?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads what the President of the European Commission said yesterday, he will find a whole range of specifically British issues, where we have made it perfectly clear that we wish change and where he has indicated the need for change. To that extent the President of the Commission will prove far more amenable to the British position than any of the alternatives.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the recent fall in unemployment, is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent CBI survey that showed that exports from small manufacturing companies in this country are at their best level for 10 years? As they appear not to be having any problems with exchange control or exchange rate risks, is there not a further argument for saying that what Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, says about the need for a European single currency by 1997 is undesirable, unrealistic and unnecessary?

    The Prime Minister: I think that, in respect of the first point of my hon. Friend’s question, he is quite right to stress the growth in exports. He might have also stressed the extent to which manufacturing exports, in particular, are doing so well, and the fact that manufacturing employment has risen by 37,000 in the quarter to December. That is the fastest quarterly growth in employment in manufacturing at any stage since records began and shows clearly the extent to which manufacturing industry is undergoing a renaissance. As far as the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, I have indicated clearly that I do not think that there is any prospect of a single currency in 1996 or 1997. At a later stage we will look at what is in the national interest in light of the circumstances.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, in which many of today’s British pensioners were involved. Why do our pensioners lag behind the rest of Europe when it comes to pensions and benefits? Why have the Government never considered providing a veterans’ benefit, which has been introduced elsewhere in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the reality of what has happened.

    He would see that, since 1979, benefits to poorer pensioners have risen by 18 per cent. over and above the increase in prices. He would see that benefits to unemployed couples and others in difficulty have risen dramatically above the rate of inflation.

    The hon. Gentleman would also see that, among those people to whom he sometimes refers as the “poorest”, there has been a dramatic rise in the possession of consumer durables. That suggests that people have more net disposable income and it suggests also that their living standards are improving, which is demonstrated by every dispassionate survey that we have seen.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: When my right hon. Friend is next in touch with Mr. Santer, will he commend him for his words yesterday that, in matters of immigration and asylum, which affect many citizens in their daily lives, the Commission will seek to meet their expectations and to allay their concerns? Will my right hon. Friend tell him that the expectations and concerns of my constituents will best be met by upholding the British border controls that were agreed in Luxembourg 10 years ago?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls. European Heads of Government endorsed our right to do so in a formal declaration and we intend to see that it is honoured.

    I hope that we may have the support of the Opposition in this matter. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated that we will have the support of the Opposition on this issue, although he does not appear to have the support of the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament.

     

    Q5. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell: Even with the small but welcome fall in unemployment, there are still 20,000 long-term unemployed in the Greater Nottingham area. The proposed budget for Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council is such that only 800 or 900 of those 20,000 long-term unemployed can be assisted. Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate response to the problems of long-term unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that long- term unemployment–whether that is defined as six months, one year or longer–is falling and has been falling for a long time. I look forward to seeing it fall a good deal further.

    Unemployment, whether long-term or short-term, has dropped by more than 400,000 in the past 12 months. Britain is well on the way to having the lowest level of unemployment in western Europe. Our unemployment rate is substantially below that of other similar countries.

    In France–the country with the most comparative population size to Britain–unemployment is just below 13 per cent. and static; here, it is 8.5 per cent and falling and there is every indication that there will be further job creation. I hope that that will involve those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although he may have mentioned–but neglected to do so–that unemployment in his constituency has already fallen by 11 per cent.

    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the excellent report of the National Audit Office on grant-maintained schools? If he has, he will have seen that those schools are performing very well indeed. They are providing an excellent standard of education and many thousands of new governors have been drawn into the process of working with teachers and parents to provide good education for our children.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the popularity of grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt about the fact that parents who have chosen grant-maintained status are pleased with the choice that they have made, and I think that that choice is exercised among many people, of all political persuasions.

     

    Q6. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: Given the widespread concern about corruption and bribery in sport and the rumours that games have been thrown for money, will the Prime Minister confirm that his regular poor performances at the Dispatch Box against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are simply a reflection of his ability and that he has not been bribed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: The expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition is as expressive as it needs to be and it expresses his view–as mine–of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

  • PMQT – 17 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

    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. Winnick: Why has the Prime Minister refused to allow the Nolan committee to look into the way in which political parties are funded? Is it because that committee would soon discover the underhand and shabby way in which the Tory party collects a lot of its money and how knighthoods and peerages are given to many of those who make the largest donations to the Tory party? Surely it is disgraceful that the Conservative party should carry on in that manner in this day and age.

    The Prime Minister: There is a disgrace in party funding. The hon. Gentleman is right–yes, indeed. The disgrace in party funding is the Labour party’s dependence on trade unions, which buy direct influence over that party’s votes. We have seen that many times in the past and we shall see it again with clause IV, as the old, unreconstructed Labour party comes to the rescue of the new Labour party.

    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that after the country gave up paying danegeld the policy was resumed under King Ethelred the Unready?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend always adds a touch of erudition to these occasions. I suspect that he has in mind the precise point that I touched upon just a moment ago–he who pays the piper calls the tune, and we know who pays the Labour party.

    Mr. Blair: On 10 January, the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s Question Time that he was as committed to maintaining the existing through-ticketing service on British Rail as I was. Tomorrow the House will have a chance to vote on a motion opposing any reduction in through ticketing. Will the Prime Minister therefore support that motion?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows what the Rail Regulator said last week. The regulator made the position perfectly clear: he is now considering the responses to his own consultation document. He said:

    “Privatisation and restructuring of the railways are intended to improve service to customers and stimulate innovation. In looking at any new proposals to replace British Rail’s current arrangements, I shall want to be satisfied that they are likely to achieve those objectives.”

    I agree entirely and I shall wait to see what proposals the regulator makes.

    Mr. Blair: But the question is: what is the Prime Minister’s own position? The Secretary of State for Transport said that any reduction in existing through-ticketing services was unacceptable. Will that therefore be the Government’s position in the consultation, which the regulator has said may mean a significant reduction in service? Will the Government tell the regulator that that would be unacceptable? And if the regulator ignores the Prime Minister’s view, what will the right hon. Gentleman do?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the Government’s position precisely, just a moment ago. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he might not have asked his second question. If the right hon. Gentleman were, time after time, to hear the Government say precisely what would be the outcome of consultations before the consultation was completed, and when the consultation was being undertaken by a regulator, he would accuse us of abusing the position of the regulator and not listening to the consultation.

    I repeat for the right hon. Gentleman: I shall want to be satisfied that the outcome of the consultation generally improves the service that is available to people on through ticketing and other matters. That is the purpose of privatisation. I am not satisfied at present with the service that British Rail has offered for many years, and I intend to see it improved. That is what privatisation will achieve.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not the case, therefore, that last week the Prime Minister was saying that he was committed to maintaining the existing service and that now he will not say that he is committed to doing so? [Interruption.] He has just been given two chances to do so, and he has not said it.

    Is not this the problem with privatisation? When the public see £700 million being spent up to now on privatisation, cuts in timetable, cuts in services, and now a possible cut in through ticketing, is it any wonder that they do not want British Rail broken up and sold off but want it maintained as a publicly owned, publicly accountable transport service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has an unsuspected sense of humour. I had not imagined, after the turn and turn about in his transport policy on British Rail in the past few days, that he would have had the brass neck to suggest to us, incorrectly, that we had changed the position that we have taken on through ticketing. Our position is precisely as we stated it at the beginning. We have made it perfectly clear what we expect at the end of the process. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we have not changed our policy on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, as he has done through a range of his own spokesmen on the Front Bench, past and present, and his press spokesman.

    Mr. Hicks: In view of the disappointing performances by our English test cricketers in recent years and the contribution that cricket makes to our national society, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to establish a cricket academy in this country and that it is a suitable project for consideration for funding by the Millennium Commission?

    The Prime Minister: On the latter point, there is no reason why, if a suitable project were put forward, it could not be considered by the Millennium Commission or, indeed, I would think, in terms of the resources from the national lottery, by the Sports Council. As regards the general proposition, my hon. Friend knows my concern about team sports generally and my desire that they should be given much more importance in the school curriculum. We intend to pursue that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

    Mr. Darling: The Prime Minister will recall his great triumph last year when he installed Monsieur Santer as President of the European Commission. In the light of what Mr. Santer had to say today on the subject of European integration, does the Prime Minister still believe that Monsieur Santer is the right man for the right job at the right time, or is the right hon. Gentleman guilty of yet another gross error of judgement?

    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read all 34 pages of Mr. Santer’s speech. [Interruption.] It is obvious from the hon. Gentleman’s face that he has read the Press Association extract and nothing more. As for the best men for the job, we shall judge the new Commission by its performance and by its efficiency in carrying out the tasks assigned to it. As I have said before and I repeat now, I believe that the high tide of federalism in Europe is past, and I believe that that will be apparent in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1974 the Conservative Government banned the export of live animals for slaughter but the Labour Government of 1975 lifted the ban? How does my right hon. Friend think that that squares with the squawking that we hear from Opposition Members, given that the Opposition agriculture spokesman was a member of the Government who lifted that ban?

    The Prime Minister: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is that I was not aware of the duplicity of the Opposition’s position on that subject –although I suppose that in view of their position on so many other matters, I would have been wise to look back and see what their agriculture spokesman had done in the past. Surely the right approach for all people concerned about the welfare of animals is to raise standards of animal welfare across the European Union, which is what we are seeking to do. We lead from the front in negotiations on the subject and we intend to continue to do so to seek the best standards of animal welfare, not just in the United Kingdom where they are already better than anywhere else in the European Union, but right across the European Union.

     

    Q3. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Prime Minister aware that a recent survey by Eagle Star showed that there were more burglaries committed in Britain than in any other country in Europe? If so, will he now admit that the failure of his policies to tackle crime have placed this country not at the heart of Europe but on the far margins of lawlessness and disorder?

    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether there is any piece of silliness that the Liberal party will not adopt to make a party point. Everyone in the House is concerned to see crime cut. The crime statistics, for the first time in not just two or three years but 30 to 40 years, are now beginning to fall. I have seen no support from the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues on the Liberal Benches for the vast range of measures that we have taken in recent years to combat and punish crime. When the hon. Gentleman comes into the Lobby to support the fight against crime I will listen to what he has to say at Prime Minister’s Question Time on the subject of crime.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister find time today to consider West Midlands Travel which, under Labour, was a sleepy nationalised industry but which, under the Tories, has been a privatised success story and is about to be floated on the stock market? Is it not good news that all the employees will receive free shares and the directors, who include the former Labour transport spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), will make large profits on their share options?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is another indication this week that it is best to be a former Labour transport spokesman than a current Labour transport spokesman. I welcome the flotation; I hope that it is a great success and that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) does well out of it. The privatisation of the bus services has proved immensely successful for bus service users and will continue to do so– [Interruption.] Labour Members who shout “Rubbish” had better take up the matter with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East.

    Mr. Barnes: Why are the Government involved in a massive exercise to kill off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by introducing their own limited and restricted measure in the House ahead of discussions on that measure? The provision is required by the 10 per cent. of people in this country who suffer from disabilities and has massive support inside and outside the House.

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill that he is seeking to dismiss. That “limited” Bill carries rights for disabled people when they are unfairly discriminated against in employment. It gives them the right to complain to an industrial tribunal when they feel that unlawful discrimination has occurred. It requires those providing goods and services to ensure that they are accessible and it provides for a conciliation service, a national disability council and measures to combat discrimination in transport and education sectors. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a limited Bill, I think that he has limited capacity to understand what is in the Government’s legislation.

     

    Q5. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware how greatly he heartened most people in this country when he stated on television on 8 January that at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 he would not agree to any constitutional change which impacted on the sovereignty of this Parliament? Does that not contrast–with striking historical force–with the renewed admission by the Leader of the Opposition in Brussels on 10 January that a Labour Government would agree to further reductions in British parliamentary and national sovereignty?

    The Prime Minister: I repeat that I believe that it would be a departure to make further constitutional changes. I was quite clear about that in my policy when I set it out a week or so ago. I am rather surprised by what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about handing more powers to the European Parliament in view of the low opinion that he expressed recently of some Members of that Parliament.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Jacques Santer – 14 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the European Commission President-Designate, Jacques Santer, in London on Wednesday 14th September 1994.

    JACQUES SANTER:

    I was very pleased in my function as designate-president of the Commission of the European Union to see the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, John Major, on my trip through the capitals, coming from Dublin; before I was in Madrid, Rome and Lisbon and we had very good talks about the constitution of the Commission and we had also the opportunity to discuss some common subjects about the forthcoming European Union, about the procedures and the institution of procedures and also the intergovernmental conference of 1996 and so on. We had a very constructive and for me at least a very useful discussion and in my view it is very important that as the upcoming President of the Commission I hear all the opinions of the members of the European Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is very little, frankly, to add to that. I have been delighted to welcome the President here today. As he said, we have ranged fairly widely, looking at what might be in the IGC, very much in its preliminary stages of course at the moment; to look at the way in which we think Europe might develop to the east; to discuss the composition of the European Commission; and to look at a number of matters related to common foreign and security policy and defence policy in the future so I think it has been a very fruitful discussion and we have agreed that we will meet at regular intervals to continue it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you are taking over at a time when there is a debate going on about the future structure of the Union. Do you see a future for a Union which has a hard core in the centre, what some people see as a two-tier Union?

    M. SANTER:

    I am very fond of all the discussions you can have about the future of Europe. I think that everybody can bring in a paper and we have to discuss it. I think that is very useful also that we have to discuss it in the future.

    As the forthcoming President for the European Commission, I cannot deal at this moment with all the papers coming up and with all the Opinions made by the European Union but I think as we made it up also for the Treaty of Maastricht and for the Treaty of the European Union we have to reach the objectives and to be a Union of 12 member states and we have to reach this objective of 12 and even the intergovernmental conference of 1996 has to reach agreement at 12 or 16; after the referenda in some of the Scandinavian countries, we have to reach 12 or 16 member states so we try and I am trying as forthcoming President of the Commission to reach agreement by all the member states. I think it is very important that all the member states can reach the targets, the objectives, that we have been trying to.

    QUESTION:

    Is it your personal view that one of those objectives should be and will be a single currency for Europe?

    M. SANTER:

    I think we reached an agreement about economic and monetary union, Inside the Treaty of Maastricht we made the steps and the stages and of course also established the criteria that each country has to reach before they could pass to the third stage and in this view I think the Treaty of Maastricht would be operational in itself. It is not my opinion to change the Treaty of Maastricht belonging to the economic and monetary union.

    QUESTION:

    But you would support the objective in that treaty of a single currency?

    M. SANTER:

    Of course.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you believe that the IGC in 1996 will be the be-all and end-all of this debate or is it just a staging post along the way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the IGC of 1996 has anything to do with a single currency and I will be very surprised indeed if a single currency is part of the debate in 1996. That debate was had at Maastricht, a view was expressed by various people, we have expressed our view and at some stage in the future people will make a judgement about whether that can proceed or not but that is not a matter that is going to be particularly on the table in 1996. Many people misunderstand that but I don’t think that is going to be materially on the table then. What people are going to be at are other institutional matters and the development of course of the Community to the east, the enlargement of the development and what that means for the institutions of the Community, that perhaps and the development of common foreign and security policy and defence.

    QUESTION:

    And on the issue of a hard core which has been raised in Germany?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know my view about the issue of a hard core. It depends what you mean by the issue of a hard core. If you mean the issue of a hard core that lays down precisely how the rest of the Community go, goes there and expects the rest of the Community to follow it, then I think that will be destructive and I set out my views on that very clearly at Leiden a few days ago.

    QUESTION (Hugh Pym – ITN):

    If I could switch to a more domestic matter, the unemployment and inflation figures this morning, do you feel they might suggest that the interest rate rise on Monday was unnecessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think that. I was delighted to see the further fall in unemployment; it has been falling for a long time; we are down now to 9.2%, that is far higher than I would like to see it but there has been a very great improvement and I think people are very pleased about that but one of the things to sustain employment in the future is to ensure that we have low inflation in the future, one of the things that will make us competitive with other countries not just in Europe and elsewhere is to make sure our inflation is as low as theirs.

    What concerns me and has concerned the Chancellor is that over many years in the post-War period inflation has gone down but it hasn’t been held down, it has gone down and it has gone up. What we are determined to do in the interests of keeping people in jobs, keeping Britain competitive is to make sure that we keep inflation within our target range of between 1 and 4% and round about the middle and lower half of that by the end of this Parliament so we are looking at the pressures that might emerge in the future and taking action to ensure that those pressures don’t damage people’s jobs and people’s prosperity.

    QUESTION:

    And would you agree if necessary interest rates would have to go up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am never going to speculate on which direction interest rates may go. It isn’t a one-way stream ever, you have to look at the conditions that apply and see what monetary policy is appropriate to contain inflation. We are serious about making sure we keep inflation under control. I have never made any secret about my passionate belief that we have to do that if we are to make sure that our economy progressively gets stronger and people’s employment gets progressively more secure and towards the end of last week the decision was made that it would be appropriate to have a small change at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    On one other subject, in a court case today, the Rachel Nickell case, there have been severe criticisms of the police handling because the accused has been allowed to walk free. Do you have any view on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen the reports yet, I may comment when I have seen them.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you very briefly about Ireland? There is criticism today from the Republican prisoners who are suggesting that perhaps you and the British Government are dragging your feet over the IRA ceasefire.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The IRA were conducting intolerable outrages for twenty-five years. I hope they have now given up those outrages for good, they certainly seem to be indicating that, they haven’t expressly yet said so, I hope they will expressly say so but we have made a great deal of progress. The Downing Street Declaration isolated the IRA, it isolated them in the opinion of the world and in the opinion of many other people and it has brought them to the position of a ceasefire. I hope we can build on that but we will build on that in a way that will be secure and I will do that at the time I think it is appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Brussels – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Brussels on Friday 15th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have, as you know, very little time. We are all due back at dinner where we have more discussions in just a few moments but let me say a word or two about our pre-dinner deliberations.

    It has taken us a little longer than we originally expected to make a decision on a Commission President but the most important part of that was to make sure that when the decision was made it was the right decision. I believe that that has now been achieved and I warmly congratulate Jacques Santer on his nomination. That now of course goes to the European Parliament and I hope they will speedily and unanimously endorse it.

    Let me just say a word, if I may, about the other candidates whose names have been put forward over the last few weeks but who have not been selected to be President.

    A number of people have contributed in many ways to this debate, a number of highly respected European figures have permitted their names to go forward. The whole matter has, I believe, been conducted in a dignified and a friendly spirit in these discussions and that certainly was the tone of the discussions we have had this afternoon.

    I think Jacques Santer is a wise choice for the next few years. He is well known to all of us, he has served on the European Council for ten years; he brings a wide degree of experience to the job as Prime Minister for some years, experience in finance matters, experience in foreign affairs. He has twice held the Presidency of the Council in 1985 and 1991 but on each of those occasions he made a substantial personal contribution to two of the most significant legislative acts that the Community has produced – the Single European Act in the mid-1980s and of course the Maastricht Treaty with its pillared structure in the early 1990s – and of course the importance of the pillared structure allowing matters to be decided by consensus was of very great importance in ensuring that that treaty came to be, so I think in Mr. Santer we have a President who is well able to reconcile conflicting views around the European table. I think that is very important indeed.

    There will be many difficult decisions to be taken in the future. He is committed to free trade, committed to the economics of the free market, a strong supporter of subsidiarity and a very strong supporter also of enlarging the Community and that is going to be a very important theme of the next few years. He comes from a country proud of its national identity and I have always regarded him as a healing force and not a divisive force and I think that will be very welcome with the difficult decisions that will need to be taken over the years that lie ahead. In brief, I think he is the right man in the right place at the right time and I wish him every success in the difficult and demanding job that he will be undertaking.

    When we had finished reaching agreement on the Presidency, we had a useful discussion on a number of other subjects and that discussion will continue over dinner this evening. Douglas Hurd gave the Council a detailed account of his visit with the French Foreign Minister to the former Yugoslavia. At the end of that discussion, very strong support was expressed by the Council for the plan set out by the Contact Group. We believe that it is absolutely essential to do everything to secure its acceptance and avert the threat of an intensified war in former Yugoslavia. It may be the Foreign Secretary will wish to add a word or two about that.

    The French Prime Minister also raised the question of emergency aid for Rwanda. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to describe the problems there as truly horrifying. The French are playing a leading part to bring about an improvement and they deserve our support. The United Kingdom has made a very substantial contribution to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and in other ways and we will continue to do so, so we supported the proposal from the French Prime Minister for further assistance to Rwanda and that will be discussed in further detail at the Foreign Affairs Council in the next day or so.

    That is as far as we have got with our subjects in this European Council thus far, the dinner conversation, as I say, lies ahead us but if you have any questions I will happily take them but first I will ask the Foreign Secretary perhaps to say a word or two more about Yugoslavia.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    I don’t think I need add much. I gave the Council an account of Alain Juppe and my travels and our talks to President Tudjman, with Izetbegovic and the Sarajevo Government and with the Bosnian Serbs and President Milosevic in Belgrade.

    We rammed home the strong arguments in favour of accepting the Contact Group’s plan but I told the Council that I came away with a rather sombre impression particularly from our discussions with the Bosnian Serbs. There is a very real danger of a drift back into war with all the consequences for the Bosnian people and for everyone indeed who is making an effort there so I left them with that feeling. It does mean, as the Prime Minister said, that anyone who has any influence over the situation has got to bestir themselves between now and the end of the month to maximise and improve to the utmost the chances of this plan being accepted.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you think you have achieved by vetoing Mr. Dehaene in Corfu? Haven’t you wound up today with a candidate very much in Mr. Dehaene’s line of thinking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never had anything personally to say against Jean-Luc Dehaene, as you know, but there are quite distinct differences in policy between those that Mr. Santer holds to and those that attract the support of Mr. Dehaene. Mr. Santer is a very strong believer in free trade not protection; he is a very strong decentraliser, he believes in federalism in the sense of decentralisation; he is a strong supporter of subsidiarity which is going to be an important theme of the next few years. He has shown by his record in a number of ways that that is the case. He was, as I indicated a moment ago, the author of the pillared approach that enabled agreement to be reached by consensus and not centrally-determined through the Commission; he was the President of the Council when it reached its final decisions on the Single European Act and crucially in that the Single Market, all of which are vitally important to us. I don’t think there is any doubt that he is a strong believer in nation states and I think there is another point perhaps that many other people have not yet spotted and that is the fact that for his own reasons he has been a longstanding opponent of harmonisation of taxes. All those are very distinct policy points of some importance to us.

    The other point I would make is in the nature of the man himself. He is, I think, a reconciler and a healer. We are soon going to have sixteen nation states sitting round the table, not twelve, and very possibly within five years will be moving towards twenty. It is very important that the views of all of those nation states are fully taken into account and reconciled; I believe he will be very good at doing that. It is quite a formidable list of reasons for supporting him and I am very pleased at the outcome we reached this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    I wondered whether in view of what you just said, Prime Minister, you are therefore surprised to hear that Mr. Santer just now has denied that there are any political differences between himself and Mr. Dehaene. I quote: “I certainly do not believe the time has come to pause in the process of further European integration and in a deeper political union” and he repeated himself as federalist in that sense. Does that entirely square with what you have just been saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Would you have expected him to say: “Well I have got a long list of differences with my old friend Jean-Luc!”? You know very well in terms of the European debate that he isn’t going to say that.

    I have set out a whole series of practical indications of his record of what he stands for. You will have seen, I am sure, the interview he gave in the Luxembourg press just a couple of days ago and he set out very clearly his views in terms of decentralisation; he made it perfectly clear there that he was a federalist in the sense of being a decentraliser, not a centraliser and I think if you read his interview you can take it from his own words, not mine, that he matches the list of attributes that I have just suggested to those present he has.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that you too now, Prime Minister, are a federaliser in the sense of a decentraliser?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am a decentraliser, that is certainly the case. I don’t think I would attribute any other words of yours to that. I am certainly a decentraliser, I certainly believe that the nation state is an important part of the European Union, so do other nations, and it will remain so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if the views of Mr. Dehaene and Mr. Santer are so different and if one must look through his policy record to prove that, why do you think it was that Mr. Santer backed Mr. Dehaene so enthusiastically in the first round debate on the President’s job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Were you present at the Christian Democrat meeting beforehand?

    ANSWER:

    No.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nor was I. I suggest you ask someone who was present at the private meeting for the answer to that question.

    MURRAY RICHIE (GLASGOW HERALD):

    If you are such a convinced decentraliser as you say and you agree with subsidiarity, why don’t you practise it in Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Scotland is part of a single United Kingdom, I am not going to join in the sort of decentralisation the Scottish Nationalists want in Scotland which has as its ultimate aim not decentralisation but the eventual removal of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

    As far as devolvement of authority is concerned, you will know, working for the “Glasgow Herald”, of the immense devolvement of authority that has now gone to Scotland and to the Scottish Secretary of State and the changes that are currently being agreed to extend that even further in the United Kingdom.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY TV):

    You said that Leon Brittan is the right man for the job and you did repeat that quite a number of times before and during the Corfu summit so would you agree that Jacques Santer is a compromise, has to be a compromise for you and for the other European leaders and has what happened to Mr. Tim Devlin caused you very much grief?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made perfectly clear that our first choice for President of the Commission was Leon Brittan and I don’t resile from that now. I think Leon Brittan in every way would have made an excellent President of the Commission for the next few years. None of that detracts from the fact that I think Jacques Santer is an excellent candidate who has attracted support right the way across the Heads of Government and I hope will attract the support of the European Parliament in the next few days so I think he will do an excellent job.

    As far as Mr. Devlin is concerned, the Chief Whip has dealt with that matter and I believe he has dealt with it properly.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    And, of course, there is one other point to add perhaps: that Jacques Santer was chosen as the result of a period of very intensive consultation of everybody by the Presidency and that was not so before Corfu.

    JUDITH DAWSON:

    Do you think that should have happened the first time round?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Of course.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We not only think that now, we said that at the time loudly and clearly.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, now you have secured a candidate for the Commission who is clearly extremely satisfactory to Britain, do you consider that after the Corfu veto and in the talks that followed, you have put one over on Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a question of putting one over on any other members of the European Council, that is not remotely the way I see it. I thought it was right to take whatever action was necessary to get a President of the Commission whom I believe was right for Europe in the next few years and right for the United Kingdom in the next few years. That was the purpose of exercising the veto at Corfu and the only purpose.

    DON McINTYRE:

    Can I ask you whether, as David Howell said on the radio this morning, the really desirable thing about Jacques Santer from your point is that he will be very low-profile and that is really why you want him?

    May I ask the Foreign Secretary what on Bosnia he has in mind when he says that anybody who has any influence on the Serbs should use it in the desperately short time there is as they seem to be immune to all influence including that of the Russians?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think possibly Jacques Santer will be lower-profile than his predecessor. I don’t think it is the height of the profile that is really the relevant factor but the direction in which the profile is moving and as I indicated to everyone a few moments ago, I think the direction in which he will take the Community will be very amenable to the majority of member states including us.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the Bosnian point, you never can tell in life when a particular argument or piece of persuasion or pressure is just going to tip the balance in favour of what you want done so there are all kinds of pressures, the Russians you mentioned. I was actually thinking of President Milosovic. I believe there are ways in which he could exert himself should he so choose which would really be effective in bringing the Bosnian Serbs to their senses. Whether he will do that or not I don’t know. It is in his interests to do, we urged him to do so, I hope he will do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, we have heard your comparison of Mr. Santer with Mr. Dehaene. How does he compare in your view to Jacques Delors? Is he better suited in your view to being the next President of the Commission than Delors was, more to your taste?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I got the underlying message! I think he will be very suitable for the next few years but I don’t think anyone should underestimate the contribution that Jacques Delors has made to the European Union over the last few years. He and I haven’t always agreed, there is no particular secret about that, but my respect for his abilities is very great.

    QUESTION (WALL STREET JOURNAL):

    Diplomats of some member states in Brussels have expressed fears that Jacques Santer is perhaps someone from a small country that doesn’t have the clout that M. Delors or M. Dehaene perhaps have and will find it hard to lay down the law in certain areas that are quite important to the UK I believe such as the internal market, insurance, where there isn’t much progress in enforcing laws. Are you worried that a weak Commission in this sense would undermine the UK’s interests?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t accept the premise, if I may say so, at the outset. I think there has been some black propaganda of that sort about from Heaven knows where. I think from what I have seen of Jacques Santer is that he will press his case and his beliefs quite hard where that is necessary, certainly that is my judgement of the man.

    As far as the laws are concerned in the Community, the laws are there to be obeyed in the Community and I have no doubt the Commission collectively will ensure that they are. That was something we pressed for very strongly in the Maastricht Treaty. It was a matter of concern to us prior to Maastricht that we did have a number of laws across the Community and we were not satisfied that every member state was fully implementing them. There are now mechanisms to make sure that they do and I am sure they will be enforced.

    SHIRLEY DODD:

    Prime Minister, do you think you will be able to live easily with the fact that M. Santer is a strong supporter of the Social Dimension of the Union and of a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two things that often get run together: one is the Social Dimension of the Community and the other is the specific Social Chapter.

    As far as the Social Dimension of the Community is concerned, we have no difficulty with that. Indeed, if you were to ask the Commission which country has implemented more Social Dimension measures than any other, you would find it was the United Kingdom.

    As far as the Social Chapter is concerned, it is not a matter of relevance to us whether any President of the Commission supports it or not because we are not a party to the Social protocol, it doesn’t affect us, so whether they support it or not is not relevant to the United Kingdom but on the Social Dimension which is a separate matter, we support the Social Dimension, we have implemented the Social Dimension and I would anticipate will continue to do so.