The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Single Currency

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Romano Prodi – 31 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview in London with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Romano Prodi, held on Friday 31st January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon, thank you for being here this afternoon. Can I firstly say what a pleasure it is to have the Prime minister back at Downing Street this morning. We have had the opportunity over the last three hours or so to run across a very wide field of mutual interest. We have spent a lot of time self-evidently discussing three particular areas. Firstly, the development of European Policy, and in particular the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam. Secondly, bilateral matters, and I think the Prime Minister would probably agree with me when I say that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy is in very good shape indeed. There is a great deal more trade and mutual cooperation, perhaps particularly in the defence field, but not only that, than many people perhaps have realised. And the third area we have been discussing is international affairs. We have a joint interest of course in the G7 Group, of which we are both members, a joint interest in NATO, of which we are both leading members, and of course a joint interest in the European Union.

    So those are the areas that we have had the opportunity of discussing this afternoon. There are areas in European policy where we have a very similar position; there are areas, as we will both acknowledge to you, where we have a different perspective, and we have had the opportunity of discussing both of those this morning.

    MR PRODI:

    I have very few things to add to what John has said, because our conversation was very frank and the points you listed very well, we discussed deeply and our position, there are many points that are similar or identical. For example, we share similar views on enlargement both of NATO and of the European Union. We have stressed our position but we have always helped each other to understand, two countries, different interests and positions, and to have how to converge in the future, how to help each other in the common policies. We have also, I have to sum up, added to this [indistinct] specific elements like agricultural policy, BSE and other specific European issues.

    I have to confirm that in the bilateral programme there are really no different views, that we are working in order to enhance the cooperation, especially in the military industry field and in a few basic fields in which Britain afforded the process of privatisation, that is British Airport, British Airways, common action in weapon production field and all these fields of cooperation must be deepened in the future.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Do you think Italy is making a big mistake in wanting so badly to join a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Which Prime Minister?

    QUESTION:

    To you Mr Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a brace of them here. I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to comment on Italian policy. The Italian Prime Minister has taken a great many courageous decisions in order to meet the criteria necessary to enter a European currency. I think we both share the view that the criteria need to be right, that it is necessary to have the right criteria. But I think it is for you to ask Romano that question, not me. I wouldn’t dream of commenting on that.

    MR PRODI:

    I can answer that. In this long conversation we have underlined that it is possible to have different interests between different countries you know and I have understood better a lot of the British position and I think that John has understood why I “badly” – as you told – insist on Italian entrance into the common currency. There is a different system, different interests and I think that this conversation, even if the result is not similar action, is very useful to understand each other much better.

    QUESTION:

    If Britain doesn’t go into monetary union, does this affect Italy or does it affect other European countries?

    MR PRODI:

    The problem of Euro will affect all Europe of course because I think that there is a general decision and the effect will be spread over all the European countries. So I think that each country must have a responsibility for a right and correct decision in the future and we have really deepened the problem of the consequence of the different actions.

    QUESTION:

    Did you reach any point of convergence? I understand why Britain wants unanimity in order to let some specific groups within the European Union on further integration [sic], Italy takes a more liberal view on this subject.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is fair to say that Italy has a more flexible view of flexibility than we do, that is certainly true. I think there is a much greater understanding of both countries’ position on that. That there has to be great flexibility in an enlarging European Union I think is a common position, but amongst the 15 nations of the European Union there is a fine selection of what flexibility might mean in practice and there is a lot of debate to be had about that.

    I don’t think anyone wishes to see a position in which a small hard core, against the interests of everybody else, proceed ahead and we need to find a way of actually coping with that and protecting the interests of other nations. There are many different models. It is safe to say that no communal model has yet commended itself. I think we made some interesting progress in discussing the problem, but I wouldn’t pretend to you that we cracked the problem in our discussion on flexibility.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Prodi, can you expand any further on next in Brussels on Monday that you might be bringing forward the budget for 1998? Is there anything further on that?

    MR PRODI:

    No, it is completely untrue and I know that there were rumours on this decision in Brussels. There is no official decision but the rumours that we have are in a completely different direction.

    QUESTION:

    Italy is to ask the European Union to launch a political initiative in Algeria. What is your comment on this initiative and can we consider it as the official position of your government?

    MR PRODI:

    No, the official position is that Algeria is an independent country and so we don’t want to interfere in their internal problems.

    QUESTION:

    My question is that you discussed the rumours of Italy bringing the 1998 budget forward, how do you fell about that?

    MR PRODI:

    I misunderstood your question. Look, this is debated in the political arena in Italy. I think personally that it is very useful to anticipate, even if there is no radical difference, but to have a clear idea of next year’s budget is very useful for the international environment, but this must be discussed with the opposition because to do it five months before the date, we have an agreement for the parliamentary procedures, so this discussion will go on.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Prodi, you said a couple of days ago that your comments that the lira was too strong were misunderstood. Could you clarify what you meant by that and what levels were you referring to in terms of the recent strength?

    MR PRODI:

    I don’t want to have any opinion on the real value of the lira. I only told a few days ago, and I repeat, that the lira, the decision of putting the lira at 990 lira per deutschmark was taken a few weeks ago and I clearly mean that if the rate of exchange goes a little up or a little down from that it has no real meaning, you know, they are completely normal fluctuations and so I am not worried about that. We have always fluctuated in the [indistinct] of the central band taken in Brussels.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 24 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 24th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of the comments made by Leon Brittan].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out a policy of negotiating and deciding. That has been our policy for a long time and Leon Brittan has supported that policy. I didn’t ask him but I understand he did so again this morning. What we have been focusing on in the last few days is the economic criteria as to when and whether it might be safe to consider this properly. We have reached the judgement it is highly unlikely that the condition will be right for Europe itself – whether or not we are in it – to go ahead on 1st January 1999. The Cabinet reached that conclusion yesterday and self-evidently, if it isn’t right, we are not going to go ahead on that particular date. That is perfectly clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was surprised that this policy hadn’t won over the Euro-sceptics in his party].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make an assertion that I don’t intend to comment upon. We have set out our policy for a long time. Our policy is in the national interest. We have set out a national interest policy and set it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. We have now looked at what the economic conditions are across Europe and reached a judgement on whether it is likely to be safe for our European partners or anyone to go ahead with the single currency on 1st January 1999. And upon the available evidence to us at present, we think it is unlikely, very unlikely, that they could safely proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if forty Euro-sceptics could defect after the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is completely off-beam – a story that has emerged from time to time, usually without any names and one that has usually been denied in the past. It seems to have re-emerged, it’s completely off-beam. As far as I’m aware there is nothing to justify it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s Amsterdam speech].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t read the details of everything the leader of the Labour Party plans to say but from what I know of what he plans to say, for example, after-school clubs for children, they have been our policy for some time. We have devoted many tens of million of pounds to them. I visited one very recently. They are a very good idea. They are our policy. I am afraid this is another example of the jackdaw tendency of the Labour Party, but if we leave a good policy lying around they will certainly scoop it up, shine it brightly and claim it as a brand new policy for themselves. But it isn’t. It is our policy, but I strongly suspect he has a watered down version of it. Beyond that, I understand what is in his speech will involve a good deal of expenditure and exclude private sector involvement which we would seek to include, so I expect there is not a good deal in the speech except for some copycat policies of ours.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the return of Alan Clark].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Alan Clark is an original. Everyone in the House of Commons knows he is an original. And he will being a dash of colour. It’s not just the question of the dash of colour and the originality of Alan Clark. There’s a very shrewd, clever, intelligent politician returning to the House of Commons and of course I welcome that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would give Alan Clark a Governmental role].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I’m not going to carry out my next Government reshuffle now, but I’m delighted you acknowledge there is going to be one.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Council of Europe Meeting in Dublin – 16 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the Council of Europe meeting held in Dublin on 16th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 13 and 14 December, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library of the House.

    The main issues on the agenda were the intergovernmental conference and economic and monetary union.

    The Council had a lengthy discussion on the prospects for the intergovernmental conference. Shortly beforehand, the Irish presidency had tabled a general outline for a draft revision of the treaty. That has been deposited in the House. It summarises fairly the position reached in the negotiations and the views of different member states. The views of the United Kingdom are fully reflected in it.

    The Council conclusions reaffirm the target of completing the intergovernmental conference at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 and welcome the presidency document as a good basis for the work that lies ahead. That work was in no way prejudiced by the Council’s conclusions in Dublin. We shall continue to advocate our own proposals and press our own concerns.

    In discussion, I welcomed the progress made in a number of areas: subsidiarity, a greater role for national Parliaments, making the common foreign and security policy more effective, improving the quality of European legislation and introducing greater openness into the workings of the European Union.

    I also spelled out the United Kingdom position on a number of key points. I see no purpose in a new employment chapter in the treaty. It will not create a single job. I do not accept that an enlarged European Union needs more qualified majority voting. On defence, we welcome co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union, but not merger or subordination of decision making. I will not agree to justice and home affairs issues falling under Community competence. It is unthinkable that the United Kingdom would relinquish its frontier controls. I also emphasised our requirement for progress on quota hopping in the common fisheries policy and on the working time directive.

    The outcome of the intergovernmental conference will do much to determine the future direction of the European Union. Some advocate a more integrated, centralised Europe. I respect that view, but I do not share it. It would not be right for Britain. I believe that the European Union must be a partnership of nation states, with Community competence where it is needed, but only where it is needed. This is more than a free trade area, but very much less than an embryo European state.

    There is only one way in which those competing visions can be reconciled, and that is through the development of a more flexible Europe. That is one of the most important issues before the conference. Those who wish to integrate further in particular areas should not be frustrated unreasonably although, if they wish to use European Union institutions, they can proceed only through unanimity. Those who do not must not be forced into unwished-for obligations, which build up resentment.

    I first set out the need for flexibility at Leiden some years ago, and it is now widely accepted. But we need to ensure that it is developed in a way that protects the vital interests of those who do not wish to integrate further in particular areas. There is much more work to be done here, and very little time in which to do it if the Amsterdam deadline is to be met.

    Economic and monetary union was the subject of much interest, although the European Council did not itself discuss the issues at any great length. The Council agreed a report by Economic and Finance Ministers covering three issues on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has reported to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks: the stability pact, the legal status of the euro and the new-–voluntary-–exchange rate mechanism. The conclusions, to which the Economic and Finance Council report is annexed, make it clear that those issues remain subject to our parliamentary reserve.

    If the single currency goes ahead, it is a vital British interest-–whether or not Britain is a member-–that it succeeds; so I welcome the progress on the stability pact. The agreement reached strikes the right balance between the necessary discipline and the need for the Council of Ministers to retain control of the disciplinary process if individual countries get into difficulty.

    The House will welcome the clear statements in the ECOFIN report that the arrangements for economic surveillance to be agreed for countries not in the single currency cannot lead to sanctions of any kind. I have made no secret of my doubts about whether enough countries will be sufficiently convergent to allow a single currency to go ahead on the present timetable. I repeated those doubts in Dublin. It is important that the figures themselves are not fudged, but whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day is less important than the extent of genuine economic readiness for such a far-reaching step. I am therefore pleased that the ECOFIN report makes clear the importance of not only achieving economic convergence on a particular day, but being able to sustain it over the long term.

    I should also report that the president of the European Monetary Institute presented to the Council, and subsequently publicly, designs for the proposed single currency’s banknotes. Those designs are the responsibility of the central banks-–as, indeed, such designs are the responsibility of the Bank of England in this country now. Everyone will have their own views on those.

    The decision on whether to go ahead with a single currency will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. Although we expect to meet the required economic conditions, we have the right to decide whether or not we wish to join, if it goes ahead. We will make our decision when we are clear about all the necessary issues, including, crucially, our assessment of the prospect for real and sustained economic convergence.

    The Council also discussed employment. Unemployment in this country is lower than in the other major European Union economies, and is falling faster. I circulated at the Council a paper on United Kingdom policies and their results, and commended it to our partners.

    The Council adopted a declaration on unemployment. My agreement to it was subject to three conditions: that it confirmed that primary responsibility for employment policy rested with member states; that the European Union’s approach remained based on the supply-side policies agreed at Essen in 1994; and that the declaration in no way prejudiced the question of an employment chapter in the treaty. Those conditions were agreed.

    The European Council also discussed justice and home affairs, in which we welcome greater European co-operation, as long as it remains firmly on an intergovernmental basis. The Council confirmed the priority of the fight against drugs, and endorsed an Anglo-French initiative to combat transit and production of drugs in the central Asian republics. It called for ratification of the Europol convention by the end of 1997-–achieved only by the United Kingdom so far-–and agreed that Europol, the European Police Office, should work in conjunction with national agencies to support the fight against international crime. The Council also created a high-level group to draw up an action plan against organised crime, welcomed joint actions against sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings, and confirmed the need for intensified co-operation against terrorism.

    I briefed my colleagues on the steps that we have taken to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy, notably progress under the 30-month slaughter scheme. I sought and received confirmation that future decisions on lifting the ban would be taken on the basis of science, as agreed at Florence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement a little later on the next steps.

    On foreign policy, the Council endorsed the London conference document on Bosnia as an excellent basis for work next year. On the middle east, the declaration that was issued reflected our concern about the current state of the peace process. The Council also expressed its strong interest in a smooth transition to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region next year and its support for the existing representative democratic institutions of Hong Kong. That was a welcome endorsement of our approach.

    The European Union is approaching some historic decisions over the next 18 months, both on a single currency and on its future direction. The result of the intergovernmental conference may well mark a crucial turning point in Europe’s development. The President of the European Commission said last week that the moment of truth lies ahead. There is one sense at least in which he is right. The choices that are made will determine not only the success and stability of Europe as a whole, but Britain’s relationship with it.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Dublin – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference held in Dublin on Saturday 14th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words at the outset. The Chancellor and I had a press conference yesterday so I won’t traipse over the ground we covered then, though you may wish to raise some of those matters in questions later.

    I am not sure whether you have yet got the conclusions of the Council, but when you do have them you will see that they are shorter than usual. I think that is thoroughly welcome, we have been seeking that for some time, and I think it also reflects the professionalism of the Irish Presidency. I think it has been a very good Presidency, I don’t say that just for the sake of form, it has been an extremely good Presidency and if I may say so, John Bruton has chaired the last couple of days with great skill.

    When you get the conclusions you will find attached to them are also the conclusions of the ECOFIN report on Economic and Monetary Union, including the stability pact. And the conclusions refer to the requirement for sustainable and durable convergence, and self-evidently that is necessary.

    If EMU goes ahead, it will be in our interest – in or out – that it is based on sound finances and that the Euro money is stable. The stability pact is not a substitute for the right economic conditions, but it is a way of ensuring that once the right economic conditions are obtained, that they are sustained for the future.

    As far as the economic conditions are concerned, self-evidently they are essential for a successful Economic and Monetary Union. And equally importantly, only those member states which genuinely have the right economic conditions, and genuinely can sustain the right economic conditions, should safely join the Euro system.

    Our own position of course is fully covered by the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. And the ECOFIN report and the regulations to which they refer involve no new policy obligations on the United Kingdom.

    The conclusions of the last couple of days reaffirm the intentions to take decisions on the Intergovernmental Conference by next June. They do that, but they do not pre-empt what any of those conclusions might be. We have long argued that the best way to make the European union flourish is not to keep pulling it up by its roots to see if it should be re-planted, but to build on what already exists, and we think the scope for action is already there and that is self-evident from the discussions in the last day or so.

    One area I think where that is particularly true is in the fight against terrorism and crime, and the ideas we have put forward are contained in the conclusions. We are keen to develop the role of Europol, working side by side with the national responsibilities which of course have primary responsibility. That of course can only truly happen when all the Member States have ratified the Europol Convention. We have done so, we were the first to do so, and the conclusions invite other members to follow suit as soon as possible.

    One other point I think worth mentioning. The programme which we initiated some time ago of less legislation, but better legislation, is also taken a stage further in the conclusions. This year there will have been only a dozen legislative proposals from the Commission. They have also withdrawn a further 50 proposals which have now become obsolete for one reason or another, and they have extended the process of consultation with 8 Green Papers so far this year. That I think is a welcome development in the way the legislation is produced.

    In the discussion on employment, I circulated a paper on the British employment experience and many of you may have spotted a speech by M Juppe recently in which he acknowledged the success in the United Kingdom in generating jobs and growth, and that approach is reflected in the declaration that you will see on employment.

    Finally, I would just like to draw your attention to the conclusions on Hong Kong which the Foreign Secretary discussed at dinner with his colleagues last evening, and I discussed over a separate dinner as well. There was very strong support from our partners for a peaceful transition and the continuation of Hong Kong’s prosperity and democratic traditions. And the Commission will now be preparing an initiative to intensify the links that the European union has with Hong Kong.

    So I think that covers the points that I didn’t cover yesterday, though I am perfectly content for you to return to those matters if you wish to ask any questions on them.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    You set out before this conference to defend the British veto. If you look at the conclusions, can you point to anything in that and say yes, I have held back [indistinct] Community in view of the passage that seems to think that there will have to be a strict capacity for action in relation to visas, asylum and immigration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I think we are talking about inter-governmentally there, not taking any centralised support. There has been no suggestion that the veto would be changed, it has not been a subject for discussion. What we have had has been the basis of the debates that will take place in the next six months, and it may well be that case that in the next six months some countries will wish to move exclusively to qualified majority voting, and by definition remove the veto. I suspect that will be one of the matters that they will raise in negotiation in the months that lie ahead. But our position is very clear cut on that. We are not proposing to surrender the veto and the veto can only be surrendered if there is total agreement, unanimity, consensus upon actually doing so, and our partners know there will not be such a consensus.

    QUESTION:

    The Dutch Presidency has been talking, as the incoming Presidency, of its priorities for the negotiations. Foremost among them is their desire to see the communautairisation of the Schengen Agreement on border controls, something that the government has been opposed to. If the Dutch Presidency offer the United Kingdom an opt-out from the consequences of the communautairisation of the Schengen Agreement, would you reconsider your veto on that question?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will consider very carefully any proposal put to me during the Intergovernmental Conference, but I certainly don’t wish, with respect, to negotiate them here on this occasion. What is self-evident is that our border controls are not going to be changed, not just because we are being stubborn and difficult, but we have a wholly different tradition to most of our continental partners and different circumstances. We have a common land border with the Republic of Ireland, and that has existed a good deal longer than Schengen, and is at least as open, if not more open, than any of their borders. But the rest of our partners have a continuous land mass in Europe; we don’t, we are an island, we have different circumstances. They have a long tradition and acceptance of identity cards, of police papers being readily produced, that we don’t have in the United Kingdom. So our borders are of especial importance to us because they are our mechanism for protection against abuse of immigration and protection against crime. So that is not something we are likely to alter. If people are putting ideas to us about how they may proceed in certain circumstances, without involving the United Kingdom, then it would be very ungracious of me not to examine them. But I would like to see them and examine them very carefully before I reached a conclusion on them.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    If I could take you back to the section of the draft conclusion that Elinor was referring to, when it talks about strengthened capacity for action. “In relation to asylum, immigration, crossing external borders, drugs, crime, terrorism, the Union must be given the means to act effectively in these areas”. Given all that you have been saying, surely you object to that particular passage. Did you make any effort to get that struck out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, we didn’t, because we didn’t need to. The circumstance in which that is being discussed is determining the intergovernmental nature of the work that will be done through Europol and other matters, and we are very keen to work with Europol. Working with Europol is not a problem. We have been one of the foremost advocates of doing so and for a very sound reason. Many of the problems of crime that afflict Northern Europe, including the United Kingdom, are international. The advantages of working together are clear. What is not proposed there is that there would be Union responsibility subordinating national responsibility. To read it that way is to misunderstand the context of the discussions and the purpose of the conclusions.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, SKY News):

    Yesterday, you were kind enough to give us your views on the chances of a single currency happening on time. The other delegations, as you know, have expressed different opinions about that. Can I now ask each one of you three what you think the chances of Britain being in that first wave are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes you can certainly ask. Next question.

    QUESTION (Paddy Smith, The Irish Times):

    Prime Minister, given your praise for the Irish presidency, can I take it then that you would support the proposition that small countries can handle the presidency and that the presidency system should remain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Irish have handled the presidency excellently; the documentation they produced was of a very high order and the quality of chairmanship that John Bruton has shown – I haven’t attended the Foreign Affairs Council or the ECOFIN Council so my colleagues can speak for themselves – has been absolutely excellent. I have no complaints whatever about the Irish Presidency, I think it has done a first-class job. I don’t know whether Ken and Malcolm want to add anything to that.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    It is no discourtesy to anybody else but my experience of the Irish presidency is that it has been as well-conducted as any presidency I can remember, it has been done very well indeed.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The question as to whether there should be some reform of the presidency doesn’t just arise from the small size of the some of the applicant countries, it also arises from the fact that there could be as many as 25 member states and whether it is wise to have a presidency for six months run by just one country.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The other point that goes with that is whether there is some reform needed of the Troika and I think self-evidently there is going to be some reform of the Troika for reasons that scarcely need spelling out.

    QUESTION (The Economist):

    Prime Minister, under your Prime Ministership, when Britain was in the ERM the British budget swung from a surplus to a deficit that approached 7 per cent of GDP at its highest point. Since you support the stability pact, do you think that this sort of irresponsible behaviour should have been punished by a fine of around 3.5 billion pounds?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, nor would it have been because if you read the stability pact carefully you will see in areas of substantial recession – I think above 2 per cent, the Chancellor will confirm – those circumstances would not apply, neither are the fines now automatic, the German proposal for automaticity of fines did not receive the approval of colleagues and, as you know, it has been changed so we certainly would not have been subjected to that fine and if you look at what happened during that period, you would see that that applied to countries right across western Europe in perhaps the worst recession we have known, you will also have seen the improvement since in the United Kingdom economy.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, now the stability pact has been agreed, the French and Germans are going to start talking more about who should enforce it and they are talking about setting up a form of economic government for Europe informally. How do you feel about Britain being excluded from that?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    We are not! Firstly, the enforcement – as you put it – of the Stability Council will be enforcement by the ECOFIN Council at this stage and once you go into the single currency it will be the finance ministers of those countries which are in membership who will enforce discipline on each other and nobody has proposed any change to that.

    There have been in the past some people canvassing the idea of an informal council comprising the ministers of the members states meeting in some way, not using the institutions of the Community but informally between sessions, in order to have an overall oversight of how the single monetary union is going. That has not been mentioned once in Dublin, it hasn’t been raised and the last time it was raised it didn’t get a very forthcoming response from most people at ECOFIN so if you have met the odd Frenchmen or the odd German describing it in the terms that you have described, I think they are a million miles away from any discussion that has taken place at any meeting I have ever attended.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, there would appear to be some significant differences between yourself and the Taoiseach on the time frame for the entry of Sinn Fein into the peace talks. Could you comment on that and what message would you have for Mr Adams and Sinn Fein/IRA from this Dublin summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that the message to them would especially be from the Dublin summit because this hasn’t been a matter for discussion at the Dublin summit, but I think my message to Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness is very clear-cut. Everybody wishes to see a ceasefire, they wish to see a genuine ceasefire, they wish to see a ceasefire that will last and if Sinn Fein will deliver a genuine ceasefire that will last and enable us and the other participants in the talks to be confident that it will last, then the door to Sinn Fein entering the constitutional talks is open. The only people closing the door in Sinn Fein’s face are Sinn Fein and the IRA themselves. I would welcome inclusive talks but there cannot be inclusive talks with semtex and a gun hidden under the table. Nobody is going to accept that. Once that fear is removed, the talks are open for them.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters, The Express):

    Prime Minister, why do you think there is so much more hostility towards the single currency in Britain than there seems to be in other European countries and could I ask you the question that you so uncharacteristically ducked a few minutes ago? What are our chances of being in the first wave?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, I am not so sure – although the debate is fiercer in the United Kingdom – that public opinion is necessarily more hostile in the United Kingdom. I slightly argue against myself, I don’t very often agree very much with opinion polls, but insofar as you can draw anything from them, you will find in some other countries the disagreement with the concept of a single currency is stronger than it has been shown to be in the United Kingdom.

    That is not true, of course, about the severity of the debate about a single currency which has been much more severe in the United Kingdom and I think that probably springs from several reasons: we have a much more adversarial political tradition than most of our European partners and the debate on the details and the impact of a single currency has been established for much longer in the United Kingdom than in other countries. The matters that we were openly debating over the last three or four years as far as a single currency is concerned have only just begun to be debated in the same sort of fashion in the countries of many of our European partners. Perhaps another difference is that there tends, if I may put it this way, to be a political class in some of our European partners’ countries and the political class has a broadly collective view that so far as one can see is not necessarily shared by the electors that they represent. Those are the three or four principal reasons why it seems to be so different in the United Kingdom.

    As far as the other part of your question is concerned in which you say so kindly I uncharacteristically ducked, well far be it from me to disappoint you twice but I shall uncharacteristically duck it yet again for precisely the reason we have set out in the past – we will wait and see what the circumstances are. We have an option to join or an option not to join and will make our decision upon the facts of the matter when we see the circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have been praising the Irish presidency but can I ask you a serious question? An Irish official last week, after the London summit – I am talking about Northern Ireland now – said that basically you weren’t engaged at that London summit and basically what they are saying in football parlance is that you really have your eye off the ball of Northern Ireland now because of your situation at Westminster and as I said, the quote was from the Irish official that you weren’t engaged in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I find that extraordinary. I have been pretty intensively engaged in the Northern Ireland issue for the last five years and I am not going to become disattached from it. If I wasn’t engaged, we had two-and-a-half hours of pretty intensive discussion on the question of Northern Ireland and I have just indicated in the last few moments yet again exactly what the British Government’s position is. We could scarcely be more engaged and I don’t think any British Government has been as engaged and working as closely with the other constitutional parties and the Irish government as the British Government has in recent years and that remains the circumstance.

    I cannot imagine who could said what you have just reported but I will reflect upon it might have been! [Laughter].

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman, Channel 4):

    Could I just ask you to sum up what you think you have achieved at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of the summit was to determine effectively the ground rules for the negotiations over the next six months. What I wanted was the Irish text unaltered so that none of the decisions that lie ahead were prejudiced by decisions by the heads of government reached upon a brief conversation rather than detailed negotiation and that is what we have achieved.

    The Irish text, which sets out everybody’s options, remains the basis for negotiation. The debate and discussion over the past two days have not closed down any of the options and it has left open for proper debate and discussion all the issues that we wish to bring forward at the intergovernmental conference and has not foreclosed favourably on any of the issues to which we are antagonistic so we have set the ground rules for the debate over the next six months on the outcome of the intergovernmental conference and that is what we sought to do.

    QUESTION:

    Those could be your last words at a summit, Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much doubt it and I will look forward to welcoming you, if you are still in the job, in June!

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Phil Murphy, Press Association):

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

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    That was one of my shorter contributions.

    QUESTION:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    What are your current views on that?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I haven’t revised and updated mine.

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    SAME QUESTIONER:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

  • PMQT – 10 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

    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. Kirkwood: In spite of commendable resolution at the weekend, is it not clear to everyone that attempting to run a minority Government, with a party in open revolt, makes it impossible to secure a deal that is in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, at Amsterdam, Dublin or anywhere else? If, as the Prime Minister suggested on Sunday, he is motivated by the national interest, will he operate on that basis and call for an early Dissolution of Parliament, so that we can have an early general election?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I will pick the election date in my own time and not at his behest.

    On the discussions in Europe, I set out the Government’s position with great clarity. There are a number of extremely difficult questions to face in the intergovernmental conference over the next few months; on some issues, we have allies in Europe and, on others, we do not, but in each instance we have set out our position and we propose to stick with it.

    Mr. Alison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how greatly the public at large, especially parents, will welcome the Government’s decision to press the broadcasting authorities to curb television violence? Does he agree that, if there is even slight evidence that increased screen violence is linked, via imitation or disinhibition, to increased crime, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the potential victims of such crime and no reasonable remedies must be discounted?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend has spoken for parents throughout the country. There is a difficult balance to keep in ensuring that we have free and open media and that they maintain the standards that are appropriate for society generally and for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has today agreed a plan of action with the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, and we look forward to its being carried out.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Leon Brittan, who said this morning that Conservative party divisions were weakening Britain’s negotiating position in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: There are two things that really damage the national interest in negotiating in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that, when the House of Commons is not united on any issue, that weakens any Government’s position in international negotiations. That is certainly true; but what also undermines our national interest and our negotiating position in Europe is the fact that many of the socialist Governments in Europe expect, were there to be a Labour Government, a very easy ride and a distinct change of policy. They believe that a Labour Government would make changes and surrender positions to which this Government have held–positions which, if surrendered, would be damaging to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, after his interview on Sunday, much of which I would agree with, there is less clear water between him, his deputy, one half of the Cabinet and the Opposition than between him and most of his Back Benchers? If he is not prepared to agree with Sir Leon Brittan, does he stand by his own comments at the weekend that the Conservative divisions were “self-evidently” damaging to Britain’s interests?

    The Prime Minister: I made that perfectly clear at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I have also made it clear that the Government have set out a position that we believe to be in the national interest. The national interest is going to come before the party interest. There is no doubt about that, and I made that absolutely clear again. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that what also damages the national interest is the belief among our partners in Europe that many of the positions that we hold would be surrendered by an alternative Government.

    Mr. Blair: I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted that these Conservative divisions damage the country’s interest. [Interruption.] “It is obvious,” shouts a voice from the Back Benches. It is obvious, except to the Conservative party. Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Blake has said in the past few hours that he has never seen the Conservative party in such disarray in 14 general elections? Is he aware that, this lunchtime, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) referred to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) as “politically insane”? Some might say that he is a good judge of such matters. If all that is the case, does not the Prime Minister agree with the vast majority of people who say that, if the Conservatives cannot be trusted to run themselves, why should they be trusted to run this country?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that he has precisely the same divisions on his own Back Benches. I look at the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I ask whether they share the same position on European matters as the right hon. Gentleman. But I shall tell him about unity: we are united in our opposition to a centralist, federalist Europe as much as Labour is united in favour of a federal Europe. We are standing up for Britain’s interests in Europe; the Labour party is determined to stand up for Brussels’ interests in Britain.

    Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend knows, because he has visited it, that Ribble valley is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom that attracts many thousands of tourists every year. Many hundreds of jobs are involved in the tourism industry there; many of them are in small businesses, such as bed and breakfast, small restaurants and cafeterias. What does he believe would be the impact of the introduction of a minimum wage and the social chapter and of caving in to every rule and regulation from Brussels on small businesses in Ribble valley?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the impact. Small businesses would suffer greatly were those policies to be imposed on them. Not only would existing small businesses suffer greatly but jobs would be lost. Not only would present jobs be lost but the future construction of small businesses would be inhibited and future jobs that would otherwise be created would not be created.

     

    Q2. Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

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

    Mr. Denham: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes taking place in the administration of war pensions include the end to automatic reviews of entitlement, an end to reminders to submit claim forms and a requirement to provide independent evidence before a review can take place? Most important, will he confirm that civil servants estimate that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those changes?

    The Prime Minister: Last week, the Leader of the Opposition made a number of charges about war pensions which he now knows to be incorrect. He may not have known it last week when he said it in the House, but he now knows that it was incorrect and I hope that he will correct it. A few hours ago, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made charges about war pensions, which she now knows were incorrect. She was told, in the past half-hour in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, that they were incorrect. The fact is that some of the changes made last week extend benefits rather than reduce them. Some claimants will get more. No claimants will lose.

    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will know of the letters written by the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association and the Royal British Legion which made it clear that the publicity last week and the activities of the Labour party totally misrepresented the Government’s policy and what the Government had done on the issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not in the same business.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister confirm full and continuing support for grammar schools, which provide unique opportunities for children from low-income homes to achieve educational excellence? Will he resist in all ways something that is worrying us in Southend, where a quarter of all our children attend such grammar schools–abolition of selection tests, which would be a recipe for the destruction of these excellent schools?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. As my hon. Friend will know, there are proposals before the House to allow a limited amount of selection in schools of all sorts in the state sector. What we seek to do in the education sector is provide a degree of diversity that matches the diversity of the children. A single, regimented, rigid system does not enable the diversity of education that our children need to have provided. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is presenting a Bill to the House that will extend diversity and prevent the problem set out by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

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

    Dr. Jones: Surely the Prime Minister must now accept that the civil war in his party makes it impossible for his Government to have any clear authority in negotiations in Dublin or anywhere else. Would he take seriously any other European Government who were in the same shambles as his own? The last time this happened, the Prime Minister resigned as party leader. Now that it has happened again, will he, in the interest of the country, resign as Prime Minister and call a general election?

    The Prime Minister: The simple answer is no.

    As for divisions, if the hon. Lady is so concerned about them, perhaps she might have a word with the 50 or so of her colleagues who have made it perfectly clear that they are wholly opposed to a single currency. On one day, we have 50 of them saying that they are opposed to a single currency and others, led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), writing to The Independent saying that they are in favour of it. The hon. Lady had better realise that the splits in the Opposition are seismic.

    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the MORI poll published in The Sun newspaper yesterday, which was, in part, conducted in my constituency and which showed that 68 per cent. of respondents felt that they did not wish to be in a single currency and wished to keep the pound; and that almost 50 per cent. said that they would rather not be in the European Union at all? Is he aware of other polls that reflect similar sentiments? Does he not think that the honest way to clear the air would be to have a referendum and ask the people of Britain which way they would like our country to go in future?

    The Prime Minister: We made it clear last April that, if the Government decided that we would enter into a single currency, there would be a referendum on the specific question whether we should go into a single currency. That has been settled policy since last April and I hope that my hon. Friend will support that policy.

    What we need in this country is a rational debate on the issue of Europe, so that–not only on the issue of a single currency, but on all the other important issues that lie ahead of us in the intergovernmental conference–people have a reasoned debate and are then able to make reasoned judgments on the basis of facts, and not scares.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 8 December 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made during an interview held on 8th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had to change his mind that Britain might in future join a single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I’m asking everyone to accept – not just my Party – what I’m asking the whole country to accept is that the decisions that lie ahead on Europe – a single currency, but only a single currency – the decisions in the Inter-Governmental Conference are very important too – are decisions that are critical to our own national interest.

    Whether we go into a single currency, or whether we stay out of it, it is going to affect the United Kingdom in a whole series of ways, very significant ways, that will impact upon our livelihood. Now, I believe, it is in the national interest for the British Government to be in there negotiating. And, I have to say to people: I do not know what I would say to people of this country; people in the City, the farmer, the businessman; if I said, at this stage: “I’m going to opt out of negotiations and I will not be in the negotiations to protect your interests”. If I did that, I think, you would ask me why are you Prime Minister? Why aren’t you there protecting British interests? Well, I intend to stay there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was a question of keeping the opt-out and whether he should rule out entry].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, let us take your premise. Certainly, a number of other countries are moving towards a single currency. Some of them for their own reasons are very enthusiastic about it. For some of them, it certainly makes undeniable sense. There’s a great head of steam behind it. All that is absolutely true. You say they’re looking at a flawed way of going in and by that I assume you mean that they will.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if criteria would be fudged].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, the criteria is a jargon. Fudging the economic circumstances that would make it prudent to go into a single currency. Well, let me take that proposition. Let us assume that is what they are doing. If they are fudging the criteria, then, there would be no question of the United Kingdom joining, no question at all. We established those criteria. We have no intention of going into a flawed economic and monetary union. That would be absurd.

    But, let me take a second point then. If they are fudging it, should we therefore say: “now, we’ll have nothing to do with it?”. Well, I don’t believe that we should. And, I will tell you exactly why I don’t believe that we should. If they are fudging the criteria and they then set up a European monetary system that is weak, that will have a very damaging effect upon the United Kingdom. But giving ourselves a red card now and fleeing the field, when the game’s still to be played, seems to me to be a dereliction of responsibility.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Unemployment

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “to simplify policy and procedures”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Faulds: Out of order.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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