Tag: Single Currency

  • PMQT – 27 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House whether he knew of the £6.2 million rescue package put together by ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Lord Younger last October to save the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) from being disqualified as a Member of Parliament? Did the Prime Minister approve of the deal?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Lady–forgive me for that slip–that that is not a matter for me, and it was not a matter of which I was aware.

    Mr. Pickles: In his busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the book by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? What lessons does he draw from it for his own Government–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question about lessons to be drawn by the Government and hon. Members should listen.

    Mr. Pickles: May I draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the suggestion in the book that, under a Labour Government, each newly married couple would receive £5,000? Is he aware that the last time that that proposal was seriously made was in Germany under the Third Reich? Does he agree that, in seeking a role model for his own leader, the hon. Gentleman has bypassed domestic role models and seeks the concept of “Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer”?

    The Prime Minister: I have not read the book, but it clearly sounds an extremely good buy, even if I have to purchase it myself. I am not sure that the book will do a good deal of good for the hon. Gentleman who wrote it. If he has the influence on Labour party policy that many of us believe, I hope that everybody will take the opportunity of reading the book.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Government wholeheartedly in the peace process and will continue to do so. In view of the damaging speculation, will he clarify whether any deal was offered to the Government last night, as has been suggested?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear last night–and I have made it clear on earlier occasions–that I have no intention of doing any deal with any party on any occasion if the price of that deal is any given action by the Government in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process. I appreciate the support that I have had, across the House, on that process. To many Members of the House, the process has been seen as being above politics in many ways, which I believe is right. I am not in the market for deals now or in the future, and I think that every hon. Member is aware of that.

    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the Prime Minister will, therefore, deplore any briefing that was given last night about deals being offered to the Government. Does he agree that the issue of Northern Ireland and other issues of intense party controversy are best kept entirely separate in future?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that those matters are separate and, as I said a moment ago, there are no deals and there will be no deals, and I think everyone is aware of that.

    Mr. Skinner: The DUP?

    The Prime Minister: There is no deal with any political party in the House–not with the Democratic Unionist party, not with the Ulster Unionists, not with the Social Democratic and Labour party. No deal–not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at all–on this process.

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend continue to give priority to increasing the number of police officers available for beat duty, especially in rural areas? Does he agree that those officers should be full time, that the fight against crime requires total dedication and commitment from our police and that part-time officers are no substitute?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tremendous reassurance that is given to people by seeing police officers on the beat. He will be aware that we have provided funding in this year’s public expenditure round that gives chief constables the resources to put a further 5,000 police officers on the beat.

    Having said that, I also believe that those who serve part time in the police force do a very good service for their community, as do special constables. My hon. Friend is entirely right, however, that the public feel deeply reassured by seeing more full-time, fully trained police officers on the beat. That is what we want; we have provided resources to obtain it.

    Mr. Ashdown: On GMTV on Sunday, the Defence Secretary said that he believed that a European single currency in Europe is very likely. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    The Prime Minister: May I, first, in a spirit of cross-party good will, wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy birthday? I cannot promise that this good will will always last.

    I think that many countries in Europe believe that a single currency would be good for Europe and that it will take place: it may, at some stage in the future. I believe that the time scales currently set out cannot safely be met.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend goes to the intergovernmental conference, will he ask his Spanish counterpart how he explains to the young people of Spain, one third of whom are unemployed, why their jobs should be sacrificed on the altar of the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend directs that question especially at my Spanish colleague, but it might equally be directed at several of my colleagues elsewhere in Europe. Throughout Europe, countries that have signed the social chapter and that have many social provisions that would be included in the social chapter, were this country foolish enough to sign it, have higher unemployment, including youth unemployment, than we have in this country–and, in many cases, far higher unemployment. That is why we believe that it would be quite wrong, in the interests not only of competitiveness but of having people in work, especially young people, to sign it. We will not, and it is one of the dividing lines between the policy of the Government and that of the principal Opposition parties.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister think it is right that last night’s vote on the conduct of two Ministers was won only because the two Ministers concerned decided to vote to exonerate themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has always taken a great interest in matters relating to Iraq. He demanded an immediate ceasefire and peace conference before Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the war, so he takes a great interest in this matter.

    If the Government had been defeated by one or two votes last night, the hon. Gentleman would have said, “Everything is proved; all must change.” Unfortunately for him, the House did not vote to defeat the Government last night. If he reads the debate that took place in the House of Lords–where perhaps a more dispassionate view was taken on many issues–he will see that five Law Lords said unequivocally that they agreed with the legal advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

    On that basis, I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) withdraw the remarks that he has made repeatedly in the past three years. Until he does so, the Government will not be able to take seriously a single word that he utters.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper giving the history of defence equipment sales over the past 30 years or so? Is it not correct that the first super salesman at the Ministry of Defence was Mr. Ray Brown, who was appointed by Lord Healey? Did not Lord Callaghan, as Prime Minister, introduce the Chevaline missile without telling half of his Cabinet or the House? He would certainly never have told the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who were members of CND.

    The Prime Minister: It is just possible that the reason why he would not tell them was given by my right hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. What happened under previous Governments is a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that this Government sold no hard armaments to Iraq and that the previous Labour Government provided many to Argentina. That is a matter of record, not speculation.

     

    Q3. Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Ms Cunningham: I wonder whether the Prime Minister noticed the demonstration that took place in Edinburgh on Saturday against swingeing Government education cuts. Some 40,000 people–parents, teachers and children–marched in protest against those cuts. That is the equivalent of about 500,000 people marching on the streets of London. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister at the Scottish Office said that he would have joined the demonstration if he had been in Edinburgh? If the Prime Minister had been in Scotland at the weekend, would he have joined the demonstration also–bearing it in mind that the slashing of local government budgets means that he would not be guaranteed police protection?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that more resources are made available year after year for education in all parts of the United Kingdom. She knows also that the proportion of public expenditure per head of population throughout Scotland is far higher than that throughout the whole of England and Wales. It is only smaller than that in Northern Ireland, where very special circumstances prevail. Of course, the hon. Lady is also in favour of an extra tax in order to provide more money and an extra imposition of £6 per week for every family in Scotland as a result of policies that she supports.

     

    Q4. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of the IRA ceasefire makes it even more important that the prevention of terrorism Act be renewed? Does he agree that that measure should be supported by all parties in the House and that to abstain, rather than to vote against it–which now appears to be the policy of the Labour party–is not sufficient and will do nothing to help in the war against terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Labour party for the bipartisan approach that it has adopted: I repeat that point yet again. I was very pleased to hear from the shadow Home Secretary that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, they will be prepared to go a little further and support us on that Bill. It would be helpful were the Opposition to do so, but that is a matter that they must consider. I can say only that, on that Bill, I would especially welcome their support in the Lobby.

     

    Q5. Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Dr. Wright: After yesterday’s events, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a civil servant who is asked by a Minister consistently, deliberately and designedly to mislead the House of Commons?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case and that there is a code of conduct for civil servants, which they follow. That has been, is and will continue to be the case.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood parliamentary constituency.

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

    Mr. Wilkinson: May I assume from that reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is referring to his last visit to Royal Air Force Northolt in my constituency?

    On that occasion, he may have climbed out to the south-west over pleasant, open countryside and green belt. Will he ensure that his Government stick to the excellent sentiments expressed by him and the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties in their letter to The Times on 9 February, in which they called for the preservation of the countryside?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently produced a White Paper on rural affairs as well and our concern for the countryside has not lately arrived, but has been a party concern for many years. That remains the case.

  • PMQT – 11 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th January 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mike O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Paris representing Her Majesty’s Government at the commemorative service for the late President Mitterrand.

    Mr. O’Brien: Tonight’s speech by Baroness Thatcher is set against the background of her well-known opposition to a single currency. As the one who wielded the knife that did her in, will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassert the Prime Minister’s view that Britain should be at the heart of Europe, and his own stated view that there can be no truly unified single market without a single currency?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House understands that there is a massive national self-interest in our policies in Europe. The purpose of our presence in Europe is to fight for British self-interest. That was very much the view of my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher and it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Each of us does it in his own way and in his own context.

    Mr. Stephen: Has my right hon. Friend received his £50 electricity rebate? Does he agree that the family silver is still there and that it is working for us better than ever, that millions of people have been turned into stakeholders and that the money that they have paid the Government for their shares has been invested in hospitals, schools, transport and in many other essential services?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his anticipation and that of the electricity consumers of this country that their average bill will be £90 less next year than it would have been otherwise.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister comment on today’s damning report from the British Medical Association which says that patients’ lives are being put at risk because of the crisis in the provision of acute hospital beds in our country?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that very important issue. The fact is that there has been an increase in the number of emergency and accident admissions to hospitals in some parts of the country. The increase is not universal, as there has actually been a decrease in some areas.

    However, this is obviously a matter of concern for the Government. It is being examined by the chief medical officer and the Government are determined to see that all proper steps will be pursued in terms of the improved management of bed utilisation which has flowed from the immensely more sophisticated treatment that is now available. We are determined to preserve the reputation of the health service as one of the most important aspects of public service.

    Mr. Prescott: Even so, is it not true that yesterday an elderly man who had suffered a heart attack died because none of the 12 Yorkshire hospitals could admit him owing to a shortage of beds? Is it any wonder when one looks at how the money is spent by the Government? They have spent an extra £1 billion on bureaucracy and an extra £25 million on company cars, the number of accountants has doubled, and the number of managers has increased from 500 to 20,000–while they have cut the numbers of beds and nurses. Is that not the real reason why there is a crisis in the national health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is deeply preoccupied with the standards of the health service and with ensuring that they are maintained. It does no service at all to people who are sick or elderly to raise concerns and fears in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has done. Since 1948, the number of beds in the national health service has been falling under all Governments. One of the reasons why that has been happening is that today patients spend less time in hospital, because the means of treating them enable a speedier recuperative process.

    I can reassure the House that, since our reforms of the health service were put in place, 1.5 million more patients have been treated every year. That is the fact that the patients of this country should hear, because it is the reassurance to which they are entitled.

    Mr. Prescott: Why is it that the Deputy Prime Minister will not admit what everyone knows–the Government are destroying one of our greatest assets? They are destroying the national health service, which was given to the nation by a Labour Government and opposed tooth and nail by the Tories.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The reason why I will not say it is that it is not true. The fact is that we are treating more patients and building more hospitals, the queues are coming down and the health service is safe with the Conservative party.

    Mr. Jessel: On the subject of hospital accident and emergency admissions, is my right hon. Friend aware that at West Middlesex hospital, which I visited at 11 o’clock last night, staff told me that on 30 December, the day of black ice, they had admitted 60 fracture cases compared with the normal daily total of 10? That is bound to have a knock-on effect for the next week or two when taken with the increase in asthma cases this winter. However, the staff are working hard, their morale is good and they should be warmly commended.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. There is no question whatever about the dedication of the staff in the health service and their ability to cope with those problems. Nor is there any universal agreement as to the causes of the increase in the number of admissions. The BMA and the chief medical officer are looking closely at the problem. It is a matter for concern, and it will remain so until it has been dealt with.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Pike: The Deputy Prime Minister will recall that Tuesday of this week marked the 10th anniversary of the day on which he marched out of Baroness Thatcher’s Cabinet. In view of her much trailed speech tonight, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House and the nation why, in 1990, he considered that it was essential that she be removed from office?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will know that after leaving Baroness Thatcher’s Government I did all in my power to secure her re-election. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As I look back on a long life of public service, I regard the fact that I played such a conspicuous role in the 1987 general election campaign, in which Baroness Thatcher was re-elected, as no mean achievement.

     

    Q3. Sir Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Colin Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend yet had the chance to give careful consideration to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore? If so, has he yet been able to figure out just what a stakeholder economy is?

    Mr. Skinner: Mine’s a sirloin.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: How typical of the hon. Member for Bolsover to choose one of the most expensive and luxurious parts of the animal. At least he has the advantage of having found an answer to the question– which is more than his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) succeeded in doing. According to The Guardian this morning, when asked much the same question he had this to say:

    “It’s warm words time again. I haven’t a clue what it means. If anyone does could they let me know?”

    If I may trespass on the time of the House, I shall explain what it means. The stakeholders that the Labour party would bring back are all our old familiar Labour friends–the unions, the single-issue pressure groups, the local authorities and the co-operatives. A stakeholder society in a Conservative world, on the other hand, is all about home owners, share owners, pension owners, choice, freedom and a competitive society.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gunnell: Further to the Deputy Prime Minister’s replies on the question of the elderly man from Bradford who died while waiting for a hospital bed, is he aware that the admitting consultant at the intensive care unit in Leeds general infirmary described the case as just the tip of an iceberg, and said that there were hundreds of such cases? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Yorkshire Evening Post that that is a disgrace? What is he going to do about it?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have tried, when answering questions similar to the one put to me by the hon. Gentleman, to express the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who shares the anxieties of all hon. Members and the wider community. These are regrettable individual cases; they evoke nothing but sympathy from everyone involved. But it is quite wrong to believe that they are typical of the treatment that people can expect from the health service. It does this House no good in the public’s esteem to try to undermine the high reputation enjoyed by the health service.

    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to come to Leicestershire–and my constituency in particular–where he will see a growing economy, falling unemployment and increasing confidence? All those things are a direct consequence of the Government’s economic policies. Will he come to Market Harborough and the constituency generally to make sure that that message gets home even more loudly than hitherto?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that we have one of the fastest growing economies in western Europe. Unemployment has been falling for 27 months. Our inward investment is growing, and all we must ensure to keep it going is that the Government remain in charge of managing the economy.

     

    Q5. Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would like to comment on today’s opinion poll in The Guardian showing a six-point drop in Conservative support and a corresponding six-point increase in Liberal Democrat support. That could of course be explained by the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson). May I just point out that if that effect is repeated every time a Tory crosses the Floor to our Benches, after four more defections we will lead both Labour and the Tories?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not find it greatly surprising that the hon. Gentleman should seek to draw our attention to the views of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I find the views that she expressed in June this year slightly more reassuring:

    “In troubled times such as we are experiencing at present when we have been wrongly assaulted for our Government’s many fine achievements by an irresponsible press, our task is to stick together. Those old Conservative virtues of loyalty, thrift, hard work and vision must be our priorities whenever we are under fire.”

    The hon. Lady was right then.

     

    Q6. Mr. Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline the success and importance of inward investment into the United Kingdom, especially into Scotland–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little less noise on the Government Benches below the gangway. Mr. Stewart, repeat your question. I could not hear because of the noisy ones there.

    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline both the success and importance of inward investment in this country? What would be the impact of inward investment in Scotland if people who work in Scotland were subject, uniquely in Europe, to the imposition of the iniquitous tartan tax?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw this matter to the attention of the House and of Scottish people in particular. Under the excellent conditions that the Government have created, 100 inward investment projects, worth more than £1 billion and creating or protecting some 12,000 jobs in 1994-95, were delivered to Scotland in that one year alone. There is no question but that the only thing that would flow from the introduction of a Labour Government and the consequent establishment of a tartan tax would be that inward investment, flowing not to Scotland but to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would be good news for everyone except the Scots.

  • PMQT – 19 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 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. Jones: Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain’s pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Shaw: In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many businesses and voluntary organisations. [Interruption.] All those people have benefited from additional resources as a result of the recent Budget. Can my right hon. Friend also give me some words to tell our customs officers in Dover, who are thoroughly against the policies that the Labour party would introduce in terms of the legalisation of cannabis and drugs? [Interruption.] Our customs officers have provided a valuable service in keeping Britain free from drugs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports the customs officers in Dover in that action? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,

    “Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn’t the answer.”

    He continued:

    “I’ve not yet met a heroin, or ecstasy or crack cocaine user that didn’t start on cannabis”.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation–the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy–are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?

    The Prime Minister: No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?

    Mr. Blair: We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services–not hope, not wish, but guarantee?

    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving–[Hon. Members: “Where?”] I will tell Opposition Members where. The operating companies are offering a range of new services. They are responding to their customers more quickly. There are new information services. To give Opposition Members a practical example, completely new train services are being provided–[Hon. Members: “Where”?]. I will tell Opposition Members where. For example, over 100 trains a day have already been added to SouthWest Trains’ timetables. When will the Leader of the Opposition realise what is happening and realise also the opportunities for improving a service that has been too bad for too long?

    Mr. Blair: We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same–[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just–[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The barracking is intolerable.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other’s throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman’s year ended as it began–in weakness, chaos and incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.

    Mr. Garnier: As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?

    The Prime Minister: And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition’s record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us, in particular, that he fully understands the damage that could be done by that to British-Irish relations at a crucial moment in the Irish peace process?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel–very important to Ireland–and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking–and I hope that it will be possible to reach–an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom’s interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.

    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy–and he a Member from Hull.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Pickthall: As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.

    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful–introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1995 European Council at Madrid – 18 December 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s statement on the European Council held at Madrid from the 18th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council at Madrid, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library.

    I shall deal first with economic and monetary union and then with enlargement – the two most important matters discussed over the weekend.

    The decisions that the European Union must take on those two issues over the next few years could be the most crucial steps for Europe since the European Community was founded. They will have a profound effect on the political and economic stability of our continent over the next generation.

    On economic and monetary union, the Madrid Council decided on a name for the single European currency. “Euro” was not a name that attracted universal enthusiasm around the Council table; it will not ease the task of those seeking to market the idea of a single currency, but one or more of the member states had rooted objections to each of the other names suggested.

    A more fundamental decision was to study the implications of seeking to introduce a single currency in 1999. As the House knows, I have for a long time argued that the introduction of a single currency by a small minority of states would raise very serious questions about its economic consequences and about the way in which Europe functions. At the informal meeting in Majorca in September, there was general agreement that those questions needed to be examined carefully. At Madrid, a study was formally commissioned.

    The Maastricht treaty lays down strict criteria for entry to a single currency. It is now certain that, on a proper interpretation of the criteria, only a small number of member states will meet them if a single currency is introduced in January 1999. Before taking such a step, the European Union needs to consider what it would mean in practice. It must consider its effect on the states outside the single currency area, as well as those inside it. It must consider how decisions would be taken. It must ask whether the result would be divergence rather than convergence of European economies. It must consider the potential effects on employment and the demand for resource transfers. The risk of monetary instability is one of the questions to be examined.

    Some have argued for rigid linkages between those inside and those outside a single currency, by reverting to an old-style exchange rate mechanism. That is a course that has been tried and has failed. I have made it clear to our partners that I would not recommend that sterling should return to such a system.

    Europe needs coherent answers to those and other questions, and I am glad that the Madrid Council decided to examine them. The opt-out that I negotiated at Maastricht protects the United Kingdom from being forced into an unworkable system, but it is vital to our interests and to the interests of Europe as a whole that a single currency does not begin and then fail, thus causing economic turmoil right across the European continent.

    I now refer to enlargement. Ahead even of prosperity, the European Union exists to provide security and stability for the peoples of Europe. For that reason, I believe that enlargement is the most important task facing the European Union. Having demolished the iron curtain, we must never again have a dividing line running through the middle of Europe.

    Ten or more countries are hoping to negotiate entry to the European Union in the coming years. This is an historic opportunity to entrench stability through a union of democracies right across the continent, and one that I passionately believe we must take. The Madrid Council gave further impetus to enlargement. The European Commission has been asked to produce opinions on all eastern and central European applicants as soon as possible after the end of the intergovernmental conference. That is a necessary step towards full accession negotiations, which are likely to begin with at least the most advanced of the new applicants, as well as with Malta and Cyprus, in about two years’ time.

    The Madrid Council considered reports from the Commission on the implications of enlargement for the European Union’s policies, and those are profound. To be affordable and to be consistent with the EU’s obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the common agricultural policy will have to be reformed when the Union enlarges, and so will the structural and the cohesion funds. At my insistence, it was agreed that future meetings of the Council would examine the implications. The Madrid Council has therefore taken an important step towards combining policy reform with enlargement, both of which are essential to the European Union’s future.

    I shall deal briefly with some of the other subjects that were discussed at Madrid. It was agreed that the intergovernmental conference would start at Turin on 29 March. The conference will be conducted by meetings of Foreign Ministers supported by a working party made up of a representative of each Minister and of the President of the European Commission. No decisions were taken at Madrid on the substance of the intergovernmental conference. Work on the agenda will be carried out under the Italian presidency by Foreign Ministers.

    The drive to promote subsidiarity was again strongly in evidence at Madrid and was vigorously supported in informal discussion. The Commission has been instructed to examine the continued need for existing Community legislation and for proposals that are now on the table. It is now widely recognised that the United Kingdom was right to reverse the trend towards greater intrusiveness by the Commission. There was also support for our approach to job creation, flexible pay relating to performance, the curtailing of non-wage labour costs and the reform of social protection systems. Increasing emphasis is being given to small and medium-sized enterprises and to the need to cut the burden of red tape and over-regulation.

    The campaign against fraud and for better financial management, which I launched at the Essen Council a year ago, gained further weight at Madrid. The House will welcome the higher priority that is being given to intergovernmental co-operation against drug trafficking. At Madrid I presented, with President Chirac, an initiative to help Caribbean states to crack down on the trans-shipment to Europe and elsewhere of huge quantities of drugs that are produced in Latin America. That initiative was agreed by the Council and is now part of the European Union’s policy. On external affairs, the Council underlined the importance of successful implementation of the Bosnian peace agreement and gave support to Mr. Carl Bildt, who will be there leading the international civilian effort. It also discussed the European Union’s relations with Russia, Ukraine and Turkey and welcomed the agreement at the recent European Union/United States summit to strengthen the relationship with the United States.

    At the Council, the key decisions for the future were identified rather than taken. The programme of work for the next five years, the “Political Agenda for Europe”, is set out in the Madrid conclusions. It is a formidable programme. In that period Europe must review the treaty at the intergovernmental conference; review the Union’s policies, including the common agricultural policy and the structural funds; take decisions on a single currency; carry out enlargement negotiations; determine the Community’s future financing; contribute to new European security arrangements; and develop its relations with neighbouring countries, especially Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and other Mediterranean countries. The decisions that we take in that period will determine the shape of Europe well into the next century. They will vitally affect the United Kingdom’s interests and our future security and prosperity. That is why, at successive meetings of Heads of Government, I have argued for cautious and careful consideration before decisions are finalised.

    The European Union must carefully weigh the practical consequences of all those issues. Its decisions must be securely grounded in reality. We need, above all, a Europe that works. In that respect, important steps were taken at Madrid, as they were at Majorca a few months ago. They would not have been taken if we had not been prepared to raise the difficult questions and to demand practical answers to real problems. In the interests of the United Kingdom, it is essential to continue taking a hard-headed approach at the centre of European policy making, and I intend to go on doing so.

    Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? There are several areas with which we can obviously agree.

    On enlargement, I warmly welcome the European Council’s commitment to begin negotiations at an early date. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether those negotiations will indeed begin at the same time as negotiations with Cyprus and Malta? Will he also tell us how the European Union intends to differentiate between countries that will enter more rapidly, such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, and the others that will take more time? I agree totally with what he says on the common agricultural policy, but instead of using the need to reform the CAP as an excuse to delay the entry of those countries into the European Union, should not we rather be using enlargement as the lever for changing the CAP?

    I welcome the agreement at the Council to open the intergovernmental conference in March next year. I also welcome the agreement on the importance of the European Union tackling unemployment as “its principal social, economic and political objective”,” as well as the strongly expressed support in the President’s conclusions for social partnership and job creation measures. However, how is such support for job creation measures and for help for the unemployed consistent with the savage cuts in the training in work programmes for the unemployed in this country today?

    I accept and agree with the Council’s decision to take more effective action on racism – the Ministers all committed themselves to taking further action on that issue. Will the Prime Minister perhaps tell us what further action he believes we should take here? I also welcome the progress towards implementing the principle of subsidiarity in European law making at the Council, but how can he agree so much with the principle of subsidiarity in Europe and deny it so completely here at home in the United Kingdom?

    May I come to the heart of the matter, which is monetary union? Can we be clear on that which has now been agreed unanimously by the European Council: that the Maastricht timetable stands, that the third and final stage of monetary union should begin on 1 January 1999, that all the criteria for convergence, for the setting up of the European central bank and for the fixing of currency conversion rates have been reaffirmed; and that the Prime Minister has agreed to it all in Madrid, despite his objections?

    Why then has the Prime Minister been so utterly powerless in this situation? Whatever happened to those great new alliances that we kept reading he built with the French, his triumphal visit to Italy, and his constant claims that the rest of Europe was coming round to his way of thinking? Why was he driven to concealing his impotence with the fig leaf of some study into the effect of the single currency, which was so threadbare as to be an embarrassment to behold? May I tell him why? It is because no one knows what his position on monetary union is. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh!”] Conservative Members criticise us for our position – [Interruption.] They cannot have it both ways. They spend half the time criticising us for having a position on the single currency and the other half criticising us for not having one.

    Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he still believes in monetary union, as he used to say he did? Does he want to delay it or does he in fact want to abandon it? Are his hesitations about a single currency those of economic practicality or are they those of constitutional principles?

    We do not know what the Government’s position is. We do not know because one half of his party believes, as we do, that it depends on Britain’s national interests – [HON. MEMBERS: “What about the Labour party?”] I am saying what our position is. Our position is, like that of some members of the Prime Minister’s party, such as the Chancellor, that it depends on national economic interests. The other part of his party, however, believes that there is an insuperable constitutional objection to monetary union. But what is the Prime Minister’s position? We have made our position clear: what is his position?

    Is not it the case that the divisions between those Conservative Members who believe one thing and those who believe another are so deep that they consign the Prime Minister perpetually to weakness and indecision on the very issue that matters? Is the Chancellor right, for example, in saying that it is likely that there will be currency union? Does he agree with that or not? Is the Chancellor right in saying that we may have to decide by March 1998 whether we shall aim at joining?

    Is the Prime Minister seriously going to go into an election not telling us where he stands on the issue of constitutional principle? Is he going to tell us or not? Is he going to be driven to a referendum despite his earlier rejection of it and despite the fact that his Chancellor described it as madness – not as a way of letting the British people decide, but as a way of letting the Conservatives avoid deciding the issue of principle? If that is what he is going for, as the papers have been briefed, is it credible that the Cabinet – with one half siding with the Chancellor and the other half with the Defence Secretary – could ever put a united proposition on joining the single currency to the British people? [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members are shouting out that we are the poodles of Europe, and others are saying that we have not made up our minds. The fact is that we have a position set out and the Prime Minister does not. Until he is prepared to say personally what his position is, they cannot resolve the impasse.

    For too long, is not it the case that Government policy has proceeded on the fantasy that the rest of Europe was not actually going to proceed with monetary union? Of course it may still not happen, but we can no longer assume that it is not going to happen. Indeed, after Madrid, we should surely assume the opposite. I put it to the Prime Minister that it is simply no longer tolerable that, because of the divisions in the Conservative party, a proper national debate on the single currency is postponed, the Cabinet muzzled and the Chancellor sworn to silence on an issue that profoundly affects the future of this country.

    Is not it time for a serious and well-informed national debate to begin? The Government’s European policy after Madrid is still in tatters and uncertain. Rebuilding that policy is essential for Britain’s credibility. To rebuild it, we must have the debate on this issue that has been suppressed for too long, and time is running out.

    The Prime Minister I shall first touch on the points on which I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I, too, as he acknowledged, am in favour of enlargement. On the timing of enlargement, as I said in the statement, a small number of states – and in answer to his particular question, that will depend on the Commission’s opinion, which will largely be based on economic criteria, so it is an unknown number – will begin negotiations at the same time as Cyprus and Malta. The matter of which ones they are will depend on the detailed examination of their economies, which will take place immediately.

    On the common agricultural policy, I am of course doing precisely what the right hon. Gentleman asked me to do over using enlargement as a lever for change – which we have long argued is necessary – and reform, to which a number of Labour Members are late converts.

    Of course unemployment is important. Much of the debate on unemployment was concerned with the need for deregulatory moves and for cutting down the costs that have led to so much unemployment across Europe. What was signally missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s tirade was an acknowledgment that it is here, in this country, that unemployment is falling, and that it is in the socialist countries of Europe that unemployment is in some cases well over 20 per cent., and in other cases 12 or 13 per cent., where non-socialist Governments have inherited the effect of socialist Governments.

    There was no substantive discussion among Heads of Government on racism. There had been discussion at an earlier stage. There is general agreement that where there are loopholes in legislation across Europe, individual countries will seek to deal with them. The loophole that arises with the United Kingdom is over the fact that it is possible to print racist material here. It cannot be distributed here, but it could conceivably be printed here for distribution abroad. Clearly, that is a loophole that we would wish to block and I have indicated that we will certainly block that. There are some minor technical issues still being worked out, but I do not envisage that they will cause any great difficulties. They will be examined.

    The points about subsidiarity are familiar. We have debated them on many occasions in the past. We are a single nation state. The point about subsidiarity is taking authority from nation states to a central body, not the distribution of authority within a nation state.

    On economic and monetary union, the right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that we reiterated the treaty timetable. The treaty timetable was originally in the Maastricht treaty. For those who are able to meet it – that is an unknown and probably small number – it has again been reiterated.

    The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about divisions. He was not of course as clear as he might have been about his own position. Does he agree with the deputy leader of the Labour party, who again was in Europe making mischief on other matters over the weekend? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a single currency, “Yes we are against a single currency”?” Or does he agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that he was”Personally…in favour of a single currency”?” Does he agree with his Members of the European Parliament, who are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and timetable, or with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said some time ago that setting such a timetable would be “irresponsible”?

    It is good to see that there is such clear-cut agreement and leadership in the Labour party on that vital issue. If the right hon. Gentleman had observed the faces behind him, I do not think that he would have said much about agreement in the Labour party. I seem to recall reading recently that one third of the Labour party is in favour of a single currency, one third is against, and one third of them have not yet made up their minds or do not know. That is the right hon. Gentleman’s idea of agreement on that extremely difficult and complex position.

    I have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that there are questions about a single currency that are vital to this country’s interests, which are not yet known. It is the answers to those questions that I have demanded are examined in the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make up his mind on the most important single economic issue that we have faced this century without the facts, let him take that position in this great national debate – although if he is entering into a great national debate, he might make up his own mind what his own position is before he tries to debate with anybody else. Those are issues of immense importance. We will demand that they are properly discussed so that a proper decision can be taken in the interests of this country, when the facts are known and not before.

    The right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself. He said that I had said that a single currency could not proceed, and that it would not happen. Then he said that, of course, it may not – in successive sentences. What I have said consistently is that the small minority may proceed. It is dangerous if a small minority proceeds and is not ready, and it is potentially damaging if a small minority proceeds without knowing the implications for the majority of countries that do not proceed.

    Even on the most favourable interpretation and the most optimistic scenario, fewer than half the citizens in the European Union would be part of a single currency union at the outset. That is quite apart from the position of the 10 or more countries that may enter the European Union over the next few years, but which will not be remotely ready for European currency union for very many years in most cases.

    For as far ahead as we can see, whether a minority goes ahead – there is certainly a chance that a minority will – it is undeniable that a majority will not be in a single currency in 1999, and a majority will not be in a single currency for very many years.

    Mr. Douglas Hurd (Witney) Will my right hon. Friend, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition today, keep his mind open to the idea of a referendum on a single currency, should the Government at any stage decide that it is in Britain’s interests to join?

    The Prime Minister I recall discussing that matter with my right hon. Friend as long as two years ago. I know that he has thought long and hard about the implications for Europe and for this country of a single currency. I agree with him that we need to be clear about the circumstances and the conditions. The study that we commissioned in Madrid will help in that.

    I can certainly reassure my right hon. Friend that, for a decision of such magnitude, we shall keep in mind the possibility of a referendum, if the Cabinet were to recommend British entry. That has been in my mind, as my right hon. Friend knows, for a long time and it remains there. I think that it is right to keep that before us for consideration.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) Watch that space. Is not it the case that what the Prime Minister has today described as a formidable programme is what he told us a year ago had about as much relevance as a rain dance? Some rain dance.

    Does the Prime Minister understand that the whole nation has now spotted and understands his formula for ducking difficult decisions on Europe? It consists of obstructionism abroad, and appeasement at home; of playing the Euro-realist in the conference chamber, and the Euro-sceptic in the columns of The Daily Telegraph. Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the kind of leadership this country needs on an issue of such importance, and that we should be asked to hide from our future to cover the divisions in the Conservative party?

    Does not the Prime Minister understand that trying to face both ways at once in Europe means that he cannot see what is right in front of him? What is now in front of us in Europe is rising nationalism within our borders, deepening chaos outside, and – I regret – the strong probability of isolationism growing in the United States of America. Chancellor Kohl can see that; President Chirac can see that; and every other leader in Europe can see that. But the Prime Minister is so mesmerised by the divisions in his party that he is blind to it.

    The Chancellor said only two days ago that he believed that there was a 60:40 chance of monetary union occurring before the end of the century, and that the economies that would join it would be the strong ones. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    The Prime Minister The right hon. Gentleman started off by completely misquoting what I wrote in The Economist two years ago. The answer to his first question, therefore, is no. He was talking complete unadulterated rubbish, and continued to do so for some time. What I actually wrote in The Daily Telegraph was what I said in the conference chamber to my fellow Heads of Government. The right hon. Gentleman can therefore be in no doubt that the message I deliver here in this Chamber is–

    Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister Oh, the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He was there, was he? It was he who brought in the tea, coffee and the biscuits. What I said in that conference chamber is what I said here, what I wrote down and what I will take to the country.

    The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue. He has a slogan. He believes that whatever happens in Europe, he and his colleagues should rattle along behind it whether it is right or wrong, whether it is considered or not and whether it is in this country’s interests or not. He does not know enough about the subject to consider the implications.

    What the right hon. Gentleman said was copper-plated nonsense. He does not know, for example, what would be the effect of a partial EMU among some countries on Community decision taking. Can he tell me the answer to that question? Of course, he cannot. He does not even understand the question, let alone the answer. I shall spare the House the long list of the other questions that he does not understand.

    Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing) Is not it high time that we stopped talking about a single currency, as what is now envisaged is clearly a core currency? That is the expression that we should use. Is not it equally apparent that it is inconceivable that the members of an enlarged Community would be able to move towards a single currency in the foreseeable future?

    On a referendum, is not this a highly complex issue? My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the leader of the Liberal party does not understand it. The public do not even know the difference between a single and a common currency. Will my right hon. Friend therefore bear the complexity of the issues in mind?

    The Prime Minister My right hon. Friend is entirely right to draw the distinction between a single and a core currency, because, as I said to the House a moment ago, at the outset only a minority would be members. In the couple of decades ahead, with the growth of the European Union, there is no prospect that there would be one single currency right across the enlarged European Union. Of course, it may cover some countries – that has certainly always been possible – but it will not cover them all. My right hon. Friend is right about that. On the complexities of a referendum, I understand entirely my right hon. Friend’s point, and that is why we are considering the matter carefully.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) The Prime Minister is clearly moving in the right direction – [Interruption.] Will he confirm what he has previously said: that the United Kingdom will not join, or rejoin the exchange rate mechanism during this Parliament? If that is so, as I believe it is, will he confirm that the United Kingdom will not join a single currency on 1 January 1999 for the simple reason that whatever may be the wishes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall not conform with the necessary qualifying rule of rejoining the ERM two years before the actual decision about the single currency is made in March 1998?

    Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he said that he would not recommend that Britain should join or rejoin the ERM after some countries have gone ahead and joined the single currency, that means in effect that we shall never join the single currency because one cannot join it unless one first rejoins the ERM?

    The Prime Minister Let me try to clarify matters for the right hon. Gentleman. I was interested when he said that I was moving in the right direction, because the look of pain upon the faces of those on the Opposition Front Bench was a joy to behold. That was one of those occasions when I am so pleased that we have television in the Chamber.

    I certainly reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that I made it perfectly clear that we would not go back into the ERM in this Parliament. As I said in my statement, I do not propose that I would take sterling back into a changed ERM in the next Parliament either. The right hon. Gentleman concluded from that that we shall not meet the Maastricht criteria, but that is no longer the case, because the ERM that existed at the time of our membership no longer exists. If one were to apply those strict criteria, the reality would be that nobody would be able to enter a single currency. The other Maastricht criteria, of course, fully apply, while the ERM criteria for all of Europe disappear because, the right hon. Gentleman may recall, they were effectively to be a part of the inner band of the ERM, which no longer exists.

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford) As the number of difficult and technical issues connected with the move to a single currency mount, does not the wisdom of my right hon. Friend in negotiating a double option for Britain become more and more apparent? Will he give the country an assurance that he does not intend to throw away either of those options in the near future?

    Secondly, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, while criticising the opt-out that my right hon. Friend negotiated, clutches it to his own bosom? As the Leader of the Opposition says that there are no constitutional issues attached to a move to a single currency, is not the logic of his position that, if Britain were to be convergent, we would automatically enter a single currency?

    The Prime Minister That is certainly the logic of the Leader of the Opposition’s position, and we look forward to his early confirmation of that, so that no one can be in any doubt when he begins the great national debate that he has called for. With regard to my right hon. Friend’s earlier remarks, both the opt-outs are the envy of many of our European partners, which wish that they had negotiated them. I intend to exercise to the full the opportunities given to this country by that negotiation.

    Mr. Giles Radice (North Durham) May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on publicly resisting the demand of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and other Euro-sceptics that the Government rule out the option of Britain joining a single currency within the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister I indicated, first in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition 10 days ago and again over the weekend, that I was not prepared to rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament. Nobody should draw any conclusions either way about that, and I will reiterate to the hon. Gentleman why that is the case.

    It is very important that this country’s voice – raising questions that would not have been examined but for this country – is heard in the negotiations right up to the time when a decision is taken as to who should join and who should not. Whether we exercise the right to opt in or to opt out, this country – and every other country in the European Union – will, in one form or another, be affected by the decision to proceed to a single currency, even if only a minority of countries proceed. Upon that basis, I do not believe that this country’s voice – one of the most powerful in Europe – should be excluded from that debate.

    Mr. William Cash (Stafford) I very much hope that my right hon. Friend succeeds in his opposition to federalism in Europe, but does he accept that monetary union is tied up with political union? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we sold the pass at Madrid, because we did not disagree with the determination of the other member states – buttressed by the determination of Germany and by a capitulating France – to go ahead with political union? Does he agree that we must ensure soon – in a White Paper or by some other means – that we no longer go down the route of political union? Should we not utterly repudiate the use of British taxpayers’ money on a propaganda exercise by the European Commission to promote the very political union that my right hon. Friend has expressed himself to be so against?

    The Prime Minister I do not believe that the pass was sold in our discussions in Madrid. We agreed to discuss questions which must be discussed but which have not yet been discussed. It would be folly to proceed without having detailed and proper answers to those questions. Many aspects of political union will come up in different parts of the intergovernmental conference. We are considering carefully our precise response to all the important points that will come up there.

    On the expenditure on publicity, I am bound to say that the Commission’s public relations campaign was not, as reported, put to Heads of Government at Madrid and received no specific endorsement from Heads of Government at Madrid. The reason is that the Commission has authority to determine the proportion of its budget to be spent on information work and has chosen to exercise it in that fashion. It was emphatically not a matter that was put to Heads of Government at Madrid and endorsed by them.

    Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) The Prime Minister will have noted that on page 8 of the communiqué, there appear the words: “kept on a sound track”.” Assuming that those words refer not to some method of amplification but to sound money within Europe, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has rightly said that the decision is one of the most important this country has taken for, perhaps, 200 years, will he consider the establishment of a super, high-powered Select Committee, with representatives of all parties in the House thereon, to examine and come up with hard facts as opposed to opinions? Such a Committee would have the extra benefit of enabling certain parties to concentrate their own minds.

    The Prime Minister I can certainly confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that the words “sound track” relate to sound money and sound economic policies. The guiding lights of those were first put in the Maastricht treaty, at British insistence. They remain there for any move forward to EMU and have the strong support of a number of other nation states. I shall reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman said. Within Government, we shall conduct our own examination of whether those matters are being followed, quite apart from an examination of the outcome of the Maastricht criteria.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford) Does my right hon. Friend accept that his excellent questions at Madrid about the ill-named “Euro”, its huge potential cost for the European budget, its divisive potential and its threat to employment in Europe were penetrating and timely? It is a great pity that we have not heard similar intelligent questions from Opposition Front-Bench Members.

    Looking ahead, does my right hon. Friend accept that if we get to the transitional period, when a hard “Euro” will circulate along with the national currencies, the system will have some resemblance to his own plan for the hard ecu, which he put forward five years ago? Will my right hon. Friend suggest a more intelligent and modified version, if we get to the transitional period, to make it a permanent period on the ground that nothing lasts like the provisional?

    The Prime Minister My right hon. Friend is correct to say that in the proposed transitional period of 1999–2002, the new currency will effectively co-exist as a parallel currency with national currencies rather than as a core currency, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). That is similar to the hard ecu proposal which I first put forward in 1990, except that it would not proceed, as the hard ecu would have proceeded under my proposal, by a market-driven route to become a single currency, but would move, under the present proposals, arbitrarily on a fixed state to become a single currency.

    It may be that as we approach that period, the prospect of reviving the sound economics of the hard ecu proposal will return. At the moment, enthusiasm for proceeding under the Maastricht treaty route remains and I am not optimistic about the hard ecu reappearing. In economic terms, I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that I am the only Head of Government sitting round the table who now regrets that we did not take that route.

    Madam Speaker Mr. Andrew Faulds.

    Hon. Members Oh.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) Thank you, Madam Speaker. Was there any discussion in Madrid that because of the plasticity of European purpose, or perhaps lack of policy, America had to step in to sort out the Bosnian imbroglio and bring just the possibility of peace?

    The Prime Minister There was some discussion of future policy in Bosnia. There was no look back on how the present position came about. There was considerable discussion about the peace implementation force and about the activities of Carl Bildt in ensuring that the civilian aspects of the Bosnian peace are carried forward. We spent some time discussing that and no one is in any doubt about the huge matters that still have to be dealt with.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) Does my right hon. Friend agree that any core currency is bound to contain both France and Germany? France’s attitude towards the core currency will be vitally influenced by whether Britain is there as a balancing power against Germany. Are we not going to create great resentment if we do not tell France and Germany as soon as possible what our attitude in principle is?

    The Prime Minister Our attitude is one of practice. We shall make our decision when we know precisely what the circumstances may be that would impact upon our country. Whatever interest we may have in helping France or other countries to make up their mind, and I appreciate that they may welcome a view of where Britain might be at some stage, the first obligation that we have is to make the right decision for this country. I do not believe that we can make the right decision for this country until we know the answer to questions as yet unanswered and know the economic circumstances that have not, as yet, unfolded.

    Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South) Does the Prime Minister exclude UK participation in any exchange rate arrangements if EMU does go ahead?

    The Prime Minister I certainly do not exclude UK agreement to matters such as inflation targets in order to ensure a market-driven route towards largely convergent economic policies and secure exchange rates. I do not believe that going back into the artificiality of an exchange rate mechanism, which, on this occasion, would be outside the core currencies, is a negotiable proposition among the Heads of Government and it is not one that I would wish sterling to join, as I said earlier.

    Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey) May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he is handling these issues? I remind him that a policy which is both careful and cautious is a policy of prudence and that, bearing in mind the complexity and the scale of the ultimate decisions on the matter, he is absolutely right to occupy the crease and bat for Britain as long as it takes?

    The Prime Minister I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long and distinguished interest in European matters. I assure him that I shall continue to do that. When I indicated to the House earlier that the decisions taken upon monetary matters and enlargement were crucial not just to the future of this country but to the future of all Europe, I did not regard that as a casual throwaway line, but I meant it to be taken absolutely as I stated it. It is fundamentally true. For that reason, I believe that we have an obligation to be cautious. The burden of proof must rest upon those who wish us to make the change rather than those who wish us not to do so. I think that we are right to be cautious and I will remain cautious.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) Is not the truth of the matter that the Madrid decisions, with which the Prime Minister acquiesced, represent another two or three small steps towards economic and monetary union? Why did not the Prime Minister vote against some of the issues that were presented to him? Why did not the Government decide to oppose that barmy name “Euro” for the currency? Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister has come here today to represent a lot of camouflage about the Madrid summit to try to appease his Back Benchers, when the truth is that he sold out at Madrid and that the people out there will understand that?

    The Prime Minister If camouflage was needed, I would have thought that it was between the Labour Front Bench and below the Gangway on that side of the House. If there is going to be a debate, I suggest that it starts on Labour Benches, and Labour Members can try and work out precisely what their position is. We now see just how split, despite all they have said, they really are on European matters, and have been right from the start. [HON MEMBERS: “Answer the question.”] The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, in every respect, is no.

    Mrs. Edwina Currie (South Derbyshire) While it is correct, as my right hon. Friend has said, that if the wrong decisions are taken on monetary union, the result will be turmoil and chaos, could I possibly dig out of him an admission, however tentative, that if the right decisions are taken, to create a currency union among 150 million of the world’s richest citizens could be highly beneficial to all the nations concerned?

    The Prime Minister My hon. Friend puts precisely the question to which an answer needs to be found. We cannot be certain of an answer to that question without answers to the questions that I asked in Madrid, which is precisely why I asked those questions. We need to know the answers before making a judgment, which is the view of a number of people in Europe. Equally passionate views are held in the opposite direction. Until we know the details and answers to those questions, it is not possible to take a rational view of the implications of a single currency. That is what I seek to provide.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) My question is on a different but increasingly important issue, in view of events in Russia: the Community’s relations with the Ukraine. What exactly are we doing to help those people? In his talks with President Kuchma last week, what did the Prime Minister respond to the President, who is also the former technical director of Baikenor, on technical co-operation, not least in relation to the Ukraine’s valuable resources in space, which are left over from the Soviet Union, and the skills that could benefit us all?

    The Prime Minister I raised a number of matters when I spoke to President Kuchma a week or so ago. As the hon. Gentleman and the House would have expected, we discussed Chernobyl and spent some time discussing the package of support that the international community has now provided for closing Chernobyl at the turn of the century. We also looked at a variety of ways in which we could increase the trading and investment relationship between the United Kingdom and the Ukraine. There is huge scope, particularly in the energy sector, for the mutual benefit of British investment and for British technology to go into the Ukraine, where it would be warmly welcomed by the Ukrainians. I also stressed to President Kuchma that one of the inhibitions to ensuring that that investment can proceed are the present financial and legal restraints in parts of the Ukraine.

    That was the substance of our discussion. It was an extremely worthwhile visit, which will be followed up by further ministerial visits to the Ukraine. I hope that some of those will take with them high-powered delegations of business men, so that we can examine the business relationship between the United Kingdom and the Ukraine and build on it, because the Ukraine will be an important part of the European business scene in future.

    Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) Despite the usual trading of insults between the party leaders today on this momentous matter, which is of great importance to this country, and the regrettable lack of listening to the sensible suggestions made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, would not it be a good idea for the party leaders to get together? As a large majority of Members of this House are in favour of EMU, they could, on a free-vote basis, present the positive factors in favour of monetary union to the British public.

    The Prime Minister I always believe in the politics of rationality. My hon. Friend pitches a question that would demand a high price for the Leader of the Opposition in terms of discussing the reality of what lies immediately ahead. I saw no great sign of it from the leader of the Liberal Democrats this afternoon. If we can determine the answer to the questions that I have put, they will be material to framing the opinions of people in this House and beyond about the desirability or otherwise of the course that was set out some time ago. I reiterate the same point because it is undeniable: without that information, credible decisions cannot be taken. I am trying to provide it. I shall then willingly make it available to the Leader of the Opposition in a tutorial or in any other way that he wishes.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) As a decision must ultimately be taken, will a time limit be placed on the study? What will happen once the study becomes available? Will it be widely available and how will we move into decision mechanisms?

    The Prime Minister It is not quite clear how long the study will take. I saw it reported that it will take two or three years. That is clearly nonsense – it will take nothing like that. I would expect a report when we get to Florence in the summer, but I am not sure whether it will be the definitive report, and neither is anybody else. Once the report has been produced, I am sure that it will be discussed by ECOFIN and the European Council. It may be placed on the European Council’s agenda, but that has not yet been decided.

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) In view of the substantial misery and unemployment created already by European fixed exchange rates, is the Prime Minister aware that people with all kinds of views of EMU will enthusiastically welcome his statement that, in the event of the “Euro” being established by a small number of countries, there is no way that sterling will have a fixed relationship with it? Am I correct in my interpretation and, if so, does the Prime Minister accept that that will be very widely welcomed, not only in the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister Yes, my hon. Friend sets out the position entirely accurately. It is as he says.

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) May I say to the Prime Minister that, personally; I very much welcome the concept of a single currency, although certain safeguards are necessary, including making unemployment levels part of the convergence criteria?

    On a more practical matter, was the story in the Sunday newspapers – that the Queen’s head is too large for the “Euro” coin – true? If that is so, does the Prime Minister intend to negotiate the size of the coin, or does he have more drastic measures in mind?

    The Prime Minister On the hon. Gentleman’s first argument about unemployment levels, I simply have to say to him that, if he were to make unemployment levels part of the convergence criteria, there would be no single currency in his political lifetime, however long that is likely to be.

    Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) It depends what the banding is.

    The Prime Minister The hon. Lady says, “It depends what it is.” She probably believes that the 13 per cent. of France is a good convergence level. I am not sure that that is what her hon. Friend had in mind. Perhaps that is another difference between Labour Front and Back-Bench Members; I cannot imagine. We seem to be uncovering so many differences today that it is difficult to determine. Let us hope that we can go on and find some more.

    Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham) As very few countries will be able to qualify for the single currency, will my right hon. Friend say what the position of those countries will be when they find that their economies are subject to intense competition from the countries that do not form part of the single currency? Will he give the House an assurance that, in that event, there can be no suggestion of any reprisals being taken by members of the single currency against countries outside it?

    The Prime Minister My right hon. Friend puts his finger on precisely one of the matters that I have been raising with our colleagues at the European Council. It is precisely for that reason that some of the countries that anticipate that they will be in a single currency have asked for an exchange rate mechanism outside the single currency, to prevent the flexibility with which countries usually deal with economic difficulties. The danger of that, apart from the inherent difficulties that have been demonstrated several times in the past six or seven years, is that it would lead to very high structural levels of unemployment in some of the weaker-performing countries in the southern part of Europe.

    That is precisely the matter that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) brought to the forefront of my mind a moment or so ago, when he suggested that unemployment levels should be convergent. If that were the case, many of the southern countries of Europe would never, on that basis, be likely to meet the criteria for gaining admission to a single currency. That might mean that a European Union – although I believe that it will become more variable in the application of its policies to different members, and I believe that that is desirable – would for the first time find a fundamental variation in policy on one of the very basics of the whole basis of the European Union, that is, the currency question.

    Those are questions of immense importance. There is, as yet, no credible answer to the question that my right hon. Friend asks. I am asking for one.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) As economic and monetary union surely requires the convergence of the total economies of the member states, why is it that only certain indices in the public sector are included? Why not also include comparable indices in the balancing private sector?

    Surely economic and monetary union also requires the establishment of a centralised, absolute monarchy of bankers, who are separate from national Governments and from the institutions of the Community. However, surely one of the principles of European Union is to defend the western view of democracy, which is voting into power assemblies that, in turn, control government? Is not that an anomaly, and will the Prime Minister tell us whether the European Council has explained that anomaly? If it has not, will he do so now?

    The Prime Minister I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments about convergence, although he is plainly wrong when he refers to convergence as only affecting matters in the public sector. One of the most important convergents is a high degree of price stability. Price stability, which has clear implications for what is happening elsewhere in the economy, not only is a matter for the public sector, but goes right across the economy as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point and I think that his subsequent points were addressed and determined many years ago.

    Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his description of the other member states, which he said were rushing like lemmings over a cliff towards currency union? While 150 million people may be inside the currency union, is it not a fact that 5.5 billion people remain outside it? Is it not a perfectly viable option for this country to choose to opt out of monetary union and model ourselves on the thousands of economies round the world – large and small – which have independent currencies?

    The Prime Minister That is certainly an option. From the moment when I negotiated the opt-out at Maastricht, it has always been possible that this country might decide to take the decision, in its own interests, not to be a part of a larger currency union. There is no doubt that we could continue without entering into a currency union. We would have to decide whether the balance of advantage for the Government, the City, the economy and our future trading relationships rested with our being in or being out. That is precisely the substantive point. Of course we could be out and there is no doubt that we could stay out. We shall have to weigh the balance of advantage when the time comes.

    My hon. Friend is correct in his earlier point: more citizens of Europe will be outside the single currency at the outset, and for some years afterwards, than inside it.

    Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) Will the Prime Minister confirm that it was the common understanding of our partners at Madrid that no substantive decisions would be made on the IGC until after the conclusion of the election in this country? Does that not mean that, increasingly, this Administration will be seen by our partners as a lame duck Administration, which is bad for Britain?

    The Prime Minister The hon. Gentleman builds his question upon a false premise, as there was no such agreement at Majorca or at Madrid. When we begin the intergovernmental conference, which will be launched in Turin on 29 March, I hope that we shall begin to take decisions as we move through the year. Decisions will not all be held to the end of the year. We may complete the intergovernmental conference within a year, or it may take longer. If we complete it within a year, the whole matter may be determined within the lifetime of this Parliament. That is the decision that I have reached and, unless the hon. Gentleman was serving biscuits somewhere, he is in no position to shake his head.

    Sir Archibald Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell) Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the drive in Europe has come from Germany, which has a lot to do with the fact that Chancellor Kohl is ashamed of Germany’s past and frightened for its future? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the democratic institutions in Europe are woefully inadequate? If we drive towards political union without proper democratic representation at the centre, it will lead to the emergence of fascist and ultra-nationalist parties, which will want to withdraw from Europe and break up the European Union. That would deny Chancellor Kohl the goal that he is seeking and, for many hon. Members, would lead to a very unsatisfactory outcome.

    The Prime Minister The democratic institutions of Europe are bound to be considered at the intergovernmental conference. That is true of both the present powers and nature of the European Commission and the other institutional questions, which will be considered expressly during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. We must examine those issues for another reason, apart from those set out by my right hon. Friend. As the European Union enlarges – as I profoundly hope that it will – I believe that it will provide an historic opportunity for this generation of politicians to change the face of Europe in a thoroughly beneficial way. In those circumstances, many of the present institutions of the European Union will prove inadequate to deal with the enlarged number.

    Several hon. Members rose –

    Madam Speaker Thank you, Prime Minister. We must now move on to the second statement. I regret that so many hon. Members are disappointed, but I have kept the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box for more than an hour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 16 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made in an interview on Saturday 16th December 1995.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he and other European leaders had had a drink to the success of the Euro the previous night].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we most empathically did not. We discussed a whole range of foreign affairs matters last evening, Bosnia in particular but also an extremely interesting discussion on subsidiarity – the principle that things are dealt with at a national level rather than at the European level – and European ideas have changed very dramatically on that matter since the British first raised it three years ago.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the timetable for the single currency would be met after having previously said in Essen that a single currency had been unlikely].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t agree with your interpretation of our Essen discussion. What I have been saying for some time is that it is very probable that a small number of countries will decide that they are ready to go ahead. What has become very clear is that it is only going to be a small number of countries that go ahead and a number of them will have to scramble in order to meet the Maastricht criteria, so that raises the important question for everyone in the European Union of what that means if a tiny number of countries go ahead and the majority do not for one thing is certain, it will fundamentally change the workings of the European Union.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he had said previously Britain need not worry about the single currency as it had an opt-out, but yet now he was suggesting it would change the European Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t have any need to worry about whether others go ahead in the sense of us being forced to join them. We do have the opt-out; it is an opt-out set in concrete in the treaty and unless we are prepared beyond doubt that it is in the British national interest to enter a single currency, then we will not. Almost uniquely in the European Union we have that option, others do not necessarily have that option but at this moment what we saw yesterday was a number of matters made explicit that previously were implicit with the agreement of the reference scenario, but the really important questions that we have raised of what will the future situation be with a minority going ahead have not yet been answered and I have been demanding that the European Union examine those and I expect this morning that they will accede to that demand.

  • Presidency Conclusions Following Madrid European Council – 16 December 1995

    Below is the text of the Presidency Conclusions, following the Madrid European Council meeting held on 15th and 16th December 1995.


    INTRODUCTION

    The European Council, meeting in Madrid on 15 and 16 December 1995, took decisions on employment, the single currency, the Intergovernmental Conference and enlargement to bring in countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

    The European Council considers that job creation is the principal social, economic and political objective of the European Union and its Member States, and declares its firm resolve to continue to make every effort to reduce unemployment.

    The European Council adopted the scenario for the changeover to the single currency, confirming unequivocally that this stage will commence on 1 January 1999.

    The European Council decided to name the currency, to be used from 1 January 1999, the “Euro”.

    The European Council continued its deliberation on the future of Europe, which was launched in Essen and continued in Cannes and Formentor.

    In this connection, having welcomed the Reflection Group’s report, the European Council decided to launch the Intergovernmental Conference on 29 March 1996 in order to establish the political and institutional conditions for adapting the European Union to present and future needs, particularly with a view to the next enlargement.

    It is essential that the Conference achieve results sufficient to enable the Union to bring added value to all its citizens and to shoulder its responsibilities adequately, both internally and externally.

    The European Council notes with satisfaction some significant achievements in the area of external relations which have occurred since its last meeting and in which the European Union has played a decisive role:

    – the signing in Paris of the Dayton Agreement, which puts an end to the terrible war in former Yugoslavia and builds on considerable European efforts over the preceding months in military, humanitarian and negotiating terms. The European Council recognizes the decisive contribution made by the United States at a crucial moment;

    – the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU – US Action Plan signed at the Madrid Summit on 3 December 1995, which are major joint commitments with the United States to revitalize and strengthen our association;

    – the signing in Madrid of the Inter-Regional Framework Agreement between the European Union and Mercosur, the first agreement of this type to be concluded by the European Union;

    – the Barcelona Declaration, launching a new, comprehensive Euro-Mediterranean association which will promote peace, stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean through a permanent process of dialogue and cooperation;

    – the signing in Mauritius of the revised Lomé IV Convention by the European Union and the ACP States, which will consolidate the association between the two sides;

    – the European Parliament’s assent to the customs union between the European Union and Turkey, which opens the way for the consolidation and strengthening of a political, economic and security relationship crucial to the stability of that region.

    The European Council began its proceedings by exchanging ideas with Mr Klaus HÄNSCH, President of the European Parliament, on the main subjects for discussion at this meeting.

    Finally, a meeting took place today between the Heads of State and Government and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States (CCEE), as well as Cyprus and Malta. There was a broad exchange of views on these conclusions, matters concerning the pre-accession strategy and various issues relating to international policies.

    I: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION OF EUROPE IN A SOCIALLY INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

    1. ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
    2. The scenario for the changeover to the single currency
    3. The European Council confirms that 1 January 1999 will be the starting date for Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union, in accordance with the convergence criteria, timetable, protocols and procedures laid down in the Treaty.

    The European Council confirms that a high degree of economic convergence is a precondition for the Treaty objective to create a stable single currency.

    1. The name of the new currency is an important element in the preparation of the transition to the single currency, since it partly determines the public acceptability of Economic and Monetary Union. The European Council considers that the name of the single currency must be the same in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets; it must be simple and symbolize Europe.

    The European Council therefore decides that, as of the start of Stage 3, the name given to the European currency shall be Euro. This name is meant as a full name, not as a prefix to be attached to the national currency names.

    The specific name Euro will be used instead of the generic term “ECU” used by the Treaty to refer to the European currency unit.

    The Governments of the fifteen Member States have achieved the common agreement that this decision is the agreed and definitive interpretation of the relevant Treaty provisions.

    1. As a decisive step in the clarification of the process of introduction of the single currency, the European Council adopts the changeover scenario attached in Annex 1 which is based on the scenario elaborated at its request by the Council, in consultation with the Commission and the European Monetary Institute. It notes with satisfaction that the scenario is compatible with the EMI report on the changeover.
    2. The scenario provides for transparency and acceptability, strengthens credibility and underlines the irreversibility of the process. It is technically feasible and aims to provide for the necessary legal certainty, to minimize adjustment costs and to avoid competitive distortions. Under the scenario, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will confirm as early as possible in 1998 which Member States fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency. The European Central Bank (ECB) will have to be created early enough so as to allow preparations to be completed and full operation to start on 1 January 1999.
    3. Stage 3 will begin on 1 January 1999 with the irrevocable fixing of conversion rates among the currencies of participating countries and against the Euro. From that date, monetary policy and the foreign exchange rate policy will be conducted in Euro, the use of the Euro will be encouraged in foreign exchange markets and new tradeable public debt will be issued in Euro by the participating Member States.
    4. A Council Regulation, whose technical preparatory work shall be completed at the latest by the end of 1996, will enter into force on 1 January 1999 and provide the legal framework for the use of the Euro, which, from this date, will become a currency in its own right, and the official ECU basket will cease to exist. This regulation will establish, as long as different monetary units still exist, a legally enforceable equivalence between the Euro and the national units. The substitution of the Euro for national currencies should not of itself alter the continuity of contracts, unless otherwise provided in the contract. In the case of contracts denominated by reference to the official ECU basket of the European Community, in accordance with the Treaty, substitution by the Euro will be at the rate of one to one, unless otherwise provided in the contract.
    5. By 1 January 2002 at the latest, Euro banknotes and coins will start to circulate alongside national notes and coins. At most 6 months later, the national currencies will have been completely replaced by the Euro in all participating Member States, and the changeover will be complete. Thereafter, national banknotes and coins may still be exchanged at the national Central Banks.
    6. The European Council calls on the ECOFIN Council to speed up all the additional technical work necessary to implement the changeover scenario adopted today. The labelling of Euro banknotes and coins in the different alphabets of the Union will also be defined.
    7. Further preparation of Stage 3 of EMU

    Durable economic convergence

    Budgetary discipline is of crucial significance both for the success of the Economic and Monetary Union and for the acceptance of the single currency by the public. It is therefore necessary to ensure that, after moving to Stage 3, public finances are kept on a sound track in line with Treaty obligations.

    The European Council notes with interest the Commission’s intention to present in 1996 its conclusions on ways to ensure budgetary discipline and coordination in the monetary union in accordance with the procedures and principles of the Treaty.

    The relationship between Member States participating in the Euro area and non-participating Member States.

    The future relationships between Member States participating in the Euro area and non-participating Member States will have to be defined prior to the move to Stage 3.

    The European Council requests that the ECOFIN Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the EMI, study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries may not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary instability.

    Work ahead

    The European Council requests the ECOFIN Council to report on the two foregoing questions as soon as possible.

    Work on both questions should respect the Treaty requirement that Member States entering the Euro area after 1999 should be able to do so on the same terms and conditions as those applied in 1998 to the initial participating Member States.

    1. BROAD ECONOMIC POLICY GUIDELINES

    The European Council reiterates the need to maintain a high degree of convergence between Member States’ economies on a durable basis, in order both to create stable conditions for changing over to the single currency and to secure smooth functioning of the internal market. In that connection, it approved the Council report on the implementation of the broad economic policy guidelines adopted in July 1995.

    1. EMPLOYMENT
    2. The European Council reaffirms that the fight against unemployment and for equal opportunities is the priority task of the Community and its Member States.

    The medium-term strategy outlined in Essen and confirmed at Cannes provides the appropriate framework for developing the measures agreed. These measures have already begun to apply in the Member States with generally positive results, thanks mainly to an appropriate combination of structural measures and policies favouring sustained economic growth.

    The European Council welcomes the Commission’s interim report and assessment of the mutually beneficial effects of greater coordination of the Union’s economic and structural policies. It requests the Commission to submit its final report at the European Council meeting in December 1996.

    1. The European Council is pleased with the way in which the procedure for monitoring employment provided for in Essen, based on a strategy of cooperation between all those involved in this common endeavour, has been formulated and put into practice for the first time:

    – the Member States have translated the Essen recommendations into multiannual employment programmes incorporating innovative measures which have already started to bear fruit and which are the appropriate instrument for transposing the recommendations to be adopted by the Council in the socio-economic area;

    – the job-creation strategy in the European Union will receive a new impetus with the approval by the European Council of the joint report submitted by the Council (ECOFIN and Labour and Social Affairs) and the Commission (Annex 2). For the first time a convergence of views has been achieved on the approach to be followed to ensure that the current economic recovery is accompanied by a more thoroughgoing improvement in the employment situation.

    The approval of that report fulfils the Essen instructions on monitoring employment and consolidates the employment policies agreed at previous European Council meetings. With the cooperation of all parties involved, new steps are being taken not only towards identifying the obstacles in the way of reducing unemployment but above all in connection with the macro-economic and structural aspects which substantially favour the creation of new jobs;

    – it welcomes the fact that, in their Declaration from the Social Dialogue Summit in Florence, the social partners at European level arrived at a common criterion for measures to promote employment. Similarly, it is pleased to note the broad degree of convergence between this agreement by the social partners and the criteria in the single report;

    – within this same line of involvement of the various players and institutions operating within the European Union, the European Council has examined with great interest the European Parliament Resolution on employment, observing here too the broad convergence between that Resolution and the single report.

    1. On the basis of the recommendations in the single report, the European Council urges Member States to regard as priorities the following spheres of action in their multiannual employment programmes:

    – stepping up training programmes, especially for the unemployed;

    – rendering business strategies more flexible in areas such as the organization of work and of working time;

    – ensuring a pattern of non-wage labour costs appropriate to unemployment-reducing objectives;

    – continuing the current wage restraint by linking it to productivity, as an essential element in promoting intensive use of manpower,

    – obtaining the maximum level of efficiency in social protection systems so that, while maintaining where possible the level attained, they never act as a disincentive to seeking work;

    – pressing for greater conversion of passive policies to protect the unemployed into active job-creation measures;

    – substantially improving the machinery for information between those providing and those seeking employment;

    – promoting local employment initiatives.

    The above measures will be applied with particular emphasis on those categories requiring special attention, such as young people seeking their first job, the long-term unemployed and unemployed women.

    As regards measures on wage restraint, it recalls that such action falls within the social partners’ own sphere. The development of social security contributions points to the need to act within a margin for manoeuvre which will preserve the financial stability of social protection systems.

    The degree of application of the multiannual employment programmes and the recommendations adopted in Madrid will have to be reviewed at the European Council meeting in December 1996, with the aim of reinforcing the employment strategy and adopting further recommendations.

    1. The European Council reiterates the need to ensure economic growth which generates more employment and urges Member States to persevere with policies in line with the broad economic policy guidelines, backing them up with the structural reforms already initiated or awaiting application, with the aim of eliminating existing rigidities and achieving better operation of labour markets in the goods and services sectors.

    Maximum advantage must be taken of the opportunity offered by the current phase of economic expansion to achieve additional progress in the structural reforms required.

    1. The European Council emphasizes lastly the important job-creation role played by internal policies, especially the internal market, environment policy, SMEs and the trans-European networks.
    2. Members of the European Council that participate in the Agreement annexed to the social protocol to the Treaty note with satisfaction that for the first time an agreement has been reached with the social partners in the framework of that Agreement, in connection with the draft Directive on combining working and family life (parental leave). It hopes this agreement will open the way for subsequent agreements in other important social and employment areas.
    3. Lastly, in order to ensure the continued success of this strategy, it requests the Council (ECOFIN and Labour and Social Affairs) and the Commission to monitor the application of those programmes continuously and to submit a further joint annual report for its meeting in December 1996. So as to facilitate practical application of the employment monitoring procedure decided on in Essen, it is necessary to establish as soon as possible the mechanisms envisaged in the joint report (stable structure and common indicators). The European Council reaffirms its determination to continue to give the objective of job creation maximum priority in the European Union in the years to come.
    4. OTHER POLICIES

    Internal market

    The European Council takes note of the Commission report on the internal market and welcomes the agreements reached on a significant number of proposals and the adoption of a new procedure for notifying national measures which could hinder the free movement of goods, thus ensuring effective application of the principle of mutual recognition.

    The European Council took note of the CIAMPI report on competitiveness and instructed the Council to examine it.

    The internal market must benefit its citizens and integrate them to the full, through the application of the Treaty provisions on freedom of movement, better protection for consumers, an improvement in the social dimension and the development of mechanisms to inform citizens of the advantages they can obtain from the internal market and to gain a better understanding of their needs.

    The European Council stresses the importance of completing the establishment of the internal market by introducing greater competition in many sectors in order to improve competitiveness with a view to job creation. In this connection the European Council reaffirms its 1995 Cannes conclusions regarding the need to make that objective compatible with the performance of tasks of general economic interest specific to the public services. In particular, it is necessary to ensure equal treatment for citizens, uphold requirements as to quality and continuity of services, and contribute to balanced regional development.

    The European Council confirms that trans-European networks can make an essential contribution to competitiveness, job creation and the cohesion of the Union. It takes note with satisfaction of the Commission report and of progress recently achieved in this area. It calls upon the Council and the Parliament to complete the legislative framework rapidly and upon Member States to give top priority to the effective implementation of projects and, in particular, those identified by the European Council as being of special importance.

    The European Council requests the ECOFIN Council to adopt, on a proposal from the Commission, the necessary decisions to complement the financial resources currently available for the Trans-European Networks.

    SMEs

    The European Council took note of the Commission report on the role played by SMEs as a source of jobs, growth and competitiveness, which points in particular to the need to:

    – simplify administrative formalities;

    – ensure better access to information, training and research;

    – remove obstacles affecting SMEs within the internal market and promote their internationalisation;

    – improve the financial environment for them by means of better access to capital markets and encourage development of the European Investment Fund function with regard to SMEs.

    The European Council urges the Commission to put these aims into practice as swiftly as possible in the framework of the next integrated programme for SMEs.

    Environment

    The European Council welcomes the clear and decisive role the Union has been playing internationally in defence of the environment, especially in the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (Basle Convention), biological diversity, substances that deplete the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol) and other subjects dealt with at the Third Pan-European Conference of Environment Ministers.

    The European Council notes with satisfaction the important agreements reached in the context of that policy and the debate on a new integrated approach centring not only on the quality of water but also on its scarcity as a limited economic and environmental resource.

    Agriculture

    The European Council welcomes the progress of work on the reforms of the common market organizations (CMOs). It urges the Council to ensure that the common organization of the market in rice is adopted before the end of the year and the common organization of the market in wine as soon as possible. It asks the European Parliament to deliver its Opinion on the proposed reform of the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables with a view to its adoption at the earliest opportunity.

    Fisheries

    The European Council notes that Council proceedings have resulted in full compliance with the instructions given by the European Council at Essen, leading to full integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy.

    II: A CITIZEN-FRIENDLY EUROPE

    1. SUBSIDIARITY

    The European Council held an exchange of views on the application of the principle of subsidiarity as set out in the Treaty. It confirmed the guidelines established at its meetings in Birmingham and Edinburgh, which should inform Union action.

    The European Council took note of the second annual report from the Commission on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, and is pleased that the 1993 programme on the adaptation of existing legislation to the principle of subsidiarity is practically finalized.

    It requested the Commission to report to the European Council at its meeting in Florence on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to current EC legislation and to proposals under consideration.

    1. POLICIES CLOSE TO THE CITIZEN

    The European Council urges progress in the fight against social exclusion in its various forms, taking the view that solidarity is an essential factor for integration and the attainment of common objectives within the European Union.

    The European Council takes note of the approval of the fourth programme on equal rights and opportunities for women and men and wishes to continue action in favour of women with a view to achieving fully equal treatment. For the same purpose, the European Union will also monitor annually the action platform which emerged from the Beijing Conference.

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of cultural action as a way of fostering a Community dimension in the cultures of all the Member States of the Union. The European Council stresses its interest in very shortly arriving at a viable agreement on the RAPHAEL programme regarding cultural heritage of European significance.

    The European Council welcomes the renewal of the Media programme and also the decisive progress achieved in the Council on the proposal to amend the Directive on television without frontiers, which will, it hopes, be adopted as soon as the necessary conditions obtain.

    The European Council notes the work done on the protection of public health and urges adoption of the programmes to combat cancer and to combat AIDS and the programme of action on health education and training.

    The European Council notes the major report on the state of health in the European Union and trusts that the European Parliament and the Council will be able to adopt the programme of action on health monitoring and inspection as soon as possible.

    The European Council expresses satisfaction at the progress made in achieving greater transparency in Council proceedings, through the approval of a Code of Conduct to facilitate public access to Council minutes and statements when the Council acts as legislator, and at the growing number of debates which have been broadcast to the public.

    The European Council welcomes the adoption of two Decisions on consular protection, which will give citizens of the Union access to all the Member States’ consulates in third countries, in compliance with Article 8c of the Treaty.

    1. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

    The European Council took note of the report on activities carried out in 1995 in the field of justice and home affairs, which describes a very wide range of activities, among them the conclusion of four Conventions and the establishment of the Europol Drugs Unit.

    It is the European Council’s ambition that the Union can create an area of freedom and security for its citizens and it requests that, with a view to extending cooperation in these areas, future activities be focused on programmed priority areas, including Europol, over a number of Presidencies, particularly in relation to:

    1.Terrorism

    The European Council notes with great satisfaction the Council’s approval of the La Gomera Declaration on terrorism (Annex 3) as evidence of the Union’s firm resolve to reinforce collaboration in the fight against terrorism, one of the priority objectives of cooperation in justice and home affairs. It urges the Council to give expression to such cooperation in the form of effective practical measures.

    1. Drugs and organized crime

    The European Council approves the report of the Group of Experts on Drugs and stresses the urgency of translating the guidelines it contains into precise, coordinated operational activities within the Union.

    The European Council invites the incoming Italian Presidency, in collaboration with the future Irish Presidency and after consultation of the Member States, the Commission, the Europol Drugs Unit and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, to prepare a programme of activities which takes account of the guidelines in that report. The European Council will examine progress in the application of that report in December 1996.

    In this connection, the European Council considers it a matter of priority to establish a mechanism for cooperation between the European Union and Latin America, including the Caribbean, to combat drugs. It considers that the international strategy for combating drug abuse and unlawful trafficking in drugs must be based on a comprehensive, coordinated approach designed to reduce drug supply and demand through bilateral cooperation between both regions. It welcomes the Franco-British initiative on the Caribbean, which proposes regional action to combat trafficking in narcotics and which is also included in action under the Transatlantic Agenda.

    The European Council calls upon the Council and the Commission to prepare a report and the requisite proposals for action in both areas by April 1996. An ad hoc Working Party on drugs will be set up for the purpose.

    The European Council is pleased that an Agreement on precursors will be signed in Madrid on 18 December 1995 between the Community and the five countries of the Andean Pact, an important step forward in this strategy. In that connection, it supports the maintenance of preferences for the Andean countries and Central America as part of the special arrangements for combating drugs in the Generalized Scheme of Preferences.

    The European Council also expresses satisfaction at the Conference on drugs held in Brussels on 7 and 8 December 1995.

    The European Council takes note of the proceedings on organized crime and urges the Council to adopt the necessary operational measures to combat this threat to all the Member States.

    The European Council calls upon the Council and the Commission to consider the extent to which harmonisation of Member States’ laws could contribute to a reduction in the consumption of drugs and unlawful trafficking in them.

    1. Judicial cooperation

    The European Council considers that priority should be given to extradition and mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters and to the extension of the Brussels Convention and document transmission in civil matters. It expresses satisfaction at the signing of the Convention on insolvency proceedings.

    1. Immigration and asylum

    The European Council expresses satisfaction at the results achieved regarding third-country nationals residing illegally in the Union, readmission agreements and combating illegal immigration and illegal employment, and urges the Council to continue proceedings in this area.

    The European Council also expresses satisfaction at the approval of the Resolution on burden-sharing with regard to the admission of displaced persons, and the Decision on an alert and emergency procedure for burden-sharing.

    The European Council takes note of the common position aimed at harmonized application of the definition of the term “refugee” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention and calls for ratification of the Dublin Convention to be completed.

    1. External frontiers

    The European Council urges the Council to settle as soon as possible the issues outstanding with regard to the adoption of the Convention on persons crossing the external frontiers of the Member States of the European Union and welcomes the results achieved on visas.

    1. Racism and xenophobia

    The European Council took note of the results obtained on defining strategies to combat racism and xenophobia (Annex 4); it urges adoption of the Joint Action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia with the aim of approximating Member States’ laws and enhancing the opportunities for judicial assistance between the Member States in this area.

    The European Council took note of the interim report from the Consultative Commission and instructs it to continue its proceedings on that basis and complete the feasibility study for a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in time for the European Council meeting in June 1996.

    1. FRAUD AND PROTECTION OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS

    The European Council took note of the comparative analysis and synthesis document on national measures taken to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources, prepared by the Commission on the basis of reports from the Member States.

    The European Council supports the conclusions approved by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Annex 5) and calls upon the Member States and the Institutions to adopt the necessary measures to ensure an equivalent level of protection throughout the Community and in the Community budget and the EDF as a whole.

    The European Council also expresses satisfaction at the imminent adoption of the Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and the signing of the relevant Convention.

    It calls upon the Commission to submit a proposal shortly on checks and verifications in situ and requests the Economic and Financial Affairs Council to adopt those provisions before the European Council meeting in June.

    The European Council also notes with satisfaction that consensus has been reached on an Additional Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests which is designed to harmonize treatment of corruption on the part of both national and European officials and members of Community or national institutions and bodies as a criminal offence.

    It calls upon the JHA Council to continue its proceedings in order to supplement the Convention, particularly in the field of judicial cooperation.

    The European Council welcomes the Commission initiative on sound financial management and particularly its decision to establish a group of personal representatives to identify priority action at Community and national level with a view to improving budget execution and making good the shortcomings in financial management identified by the Court of Auditors.

    It invites the Commission and the Council to examine the possibility of extending the system of clearance of accounts from agriculture to other sectors.

    1. LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of preventing the imposition of unnecessary burdens on business activity, through a process of legislative and administrative simplification which must preserve the “acquis communautaire” and be accompanied by national measures contributing to the same objective. In this respect it refers to the Commission report on the report from the independent experts group.

    It calls upon the Commission to table its new proposals for the consolidation of Community law and upon the Council to act as soon as possible.

    III: A EUROPE OPEN TO THE WORLD, ENJOYING STABILITY, SECURITY, FREEDOM AND SOLIDARITY

    1. ENLARGEMENT

    Enlargement is both a political necessity and a historic opportunity for Europe. It will ensure the stability and security of the continent and will thus offer both the applicant States and the current members of the Union new prospects for economic growth and general well-being. Enlargement must serve to strengthen the building of Europe in observance of the acquis communautaire which includes the common policies.

    With that in mind, the European Council took note of the Commission reports on the effects of enlargement on the policies of the European Union, on alternative strategies in agriculture and on the progress of the pre-accession strategy for the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    The European Council takes note of the Council report on relations with the associated CCEE during the second half of 1995 (Annex 6).

    The PHARE programme, as supported by the European Council’s decisions at its Cannes meeting, and the continued activities of the European Investment Bank will allow an overall increase in the input for accession preparations.

    The European Council reiterates that the accession negotiations with Malta and Cyprus will commence, on the basis of the Commission proposals, six months after the conclusion of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, and will take its results into account. It is pleased that structured dialogue with both countries began in July 1995 within the framework of the pre-accession strategy.

    The European Council also confirms the need to make sound preparation for enlargement on the basis of the criteria established in Copenhagen and in the context of the pre-accession strategy defined in Essen for the CCEE; that strategy will have to be intensified in order to create the conditions for the gradual, harmonious integration of those States, particularly through the development of the market economy, the adjustment of their administrative structures and the creation of a stable economic and monetary environment.

    The European Council calls upon the Commission to take its evaluation of the effects of enlargement on Community policies further, particularly with regard to agricultural and structural policies. The European Union will continue its review at its next meetings on the basis of reports from the Commission.

    It asks the Commission to expedite preparation of its opinions on the applications made so that they can be forwarded to the Council as soon as possible after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference, and to embark upon preparation of a composite paper on enlargement. This procedure will ensure that the applicant countries are treated on an equal basis.

    It also calls upon the Commission to undertake a detailed analysis as soon as possible of the European Union’s financing system in order to submit, immediately after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference, a communication on the future financial framework of the Union as from 31 December 1999, having regard to the prospect of enlargement.

    Following the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference and in the light of its outcome and of all the opinions and reports from the Commission referred to above, the Council will, at the earliest opportunity, take the necessary decisions for launching the accession negotiations.

    The European Council hopes that the preliminary stage of negotiations will coincide with the start of negotiations with Cyprus and Malta.

    1. EXTERNAL RELATIONS

    FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

    The European Council expresses satisfaction at the fact that the Peace Agreement negotiated in Dayton was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995 and confirms its determination to make a substantial contribution to implementing it.

    The European Council welcomes the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of the Resolution supporting the peace agreements signed in Paris and applying their provisions at both civil and military level.

    With regard to civilian aspects, the European Council endorses the conclusions of the Conference held in London on 7 and 8 December 1995. It welcomes the appointment of Mr Carl Bildt as the High Representative and assures him of its full support.

    The application of the Peace Agreement involves the implementation of a stable military equilibrium based on the lowest possible level of weaponry. The European Council hopes that the parties involved will take advantage of the opportunity for dialogue offered by the Conference to be held in Bonn on 18 December 1995.

    It is now for the parties to shoulder their responsibilities in fully implementing the Agreement in order to bring an end to the war once and for all.

    For its part, the European Union reiterates its willingness to make a contribution to the reconstruction of former Yugoslavia in the context of equitable international burden-sharing. A preparatory conference will be held in Brussels on 20 and 21 December 1995 with a view to identifying the most urgent needs.

    The European Council reaffirms the right of refugees and displaced persons to return freely and safely to their homes throughout the territory of former Yugoslavia and to obtain fair compensation as a fundamental right.

    The European Council approved the Declaration in Annex 7.

    FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

    The European Council is pleased that the conditions exist for establishing contractual cooperation relations between the Union and the FYROM and asks the Council to approve the negotiating directives before the end of 1995 with a view to concluding a Cooperation and Trade Agreement which takes full account of its aspirations.

    SLOVENIA

    In the light of the Cannes conclusions and bearing in mind the compromise proposal from the Presidency, the European Council reaffirms its desire to have the Association Agreement with Slovenia signed as soon as possible.

    BALTIC SEA REGION

    The European Council took note of the Commission report on the current state of and prospects for cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region.

    The Union has an interest in promoting political stability and economic development in that region. The European Council therefore urges the Commission to propose a suitable regional cooperation initiative to be presented to the Heads of State and of Government of the Council of Baltic Sea States at their Conference in Visby on 3 and 4 May 1996, and thereafter report to the European Council in Florence.

    RUSSIA

    The European Council trusts that Russia will continue its action to promote stability, development, peace and democracy. It means to support its efforts. It wishes to strengthen permanently the ties between the European Union and this great country.

    It is convinced that the development of cooperation in the field of security between the European Union and Russia is essential for stability in Europe.

    It notes with satisfaction that the Interim Agreement with Russia signed in Brussels on 17 July 1995 is to come into force on 1 February 1996 and it urges the Contracting Parties to ratify the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement as soon as possible. It also welcomes the outcome of the Summit between the European Union and Russia which took place in September in Moscow. It confirms the European Union’s overall political approach to its future relations with Russia, as formulated by the General Affairs Council on 20 November 1995 (Annex 8).

    It approved a Declaration on the forthcoming holding of parliamentary elections in Russia (Annex 9).

    It supports Russia’s efforts to achieve complete integration into the international economy and its admission to the WTO and other international organizations.

    It also confirms its support for Russia’s accession to the Council of Europe in the near future.

    TACIS

    The European Council reaffirms the readiness of the European Union to continue its assistance programme to the Republics of the former Soviet Union with the aim of supporting the process of political and economic reform which these Republics have initiated. It underlines the importance of adopting the new TACIS Regulation at the next General Affairs Council.

    UKRAINE

    The European Council expresses satisfaction at the recent accession of Ukraine to the Council of Europe and supports its authorities’ undertaking to continue the current process of economic reform. The Union continues to provide support for Ukraine through macro-economic assistance and welcomes the important agreement reached with Ukraine on the definitive closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power station by the year 2000, in accordance with the timetable and conditions foreseen.

    TURKEY

    The European Council reiterates the priority it attaches to the development and strengthening of relations with Turkey and welcomes the assent given by the European Parliament which will enable the final phase of the Customs Union with Turkey to enter into force on 31 December 1995, together with the arrangements for strengthening political dialogue and institutional cooperation. It hopes that the Regulation on financial cooperation with Turkey will enter into force as soon as possible.

    The European Council recalls the importance it attaches to respect for human rights, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms and strongly supports all those in Turkey endeavouring to put reforms into practice. In that spirit, it welcomes the measures already adopted by the Turkish authorities and urges them to continue along that path.

    CYPRUS

    The Council reiterates the importance which it attaches to making substantial efforts to achieve a just and viable solution to the question of Cyprus in line with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, on the basis of a bi-zonal and bi-community federation.

    SECURITY

    In the security field, the European Council welcomes the progress made within the Union on developing a common policy for the integration of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the European security architecture, and the place which Russia and Ukraine will have in it.

    The European Council expresses its satisfaction at the approval by the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union, meeting in Madrid in November 1995, of the WEU contribution to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference confirming the desirability of strengthening links between the European Union and the WEU. It takes note of the wish expressed by the WEU to contribute, as necessary, to the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference on security and defence aspects and to keep a close watch on their development. The European Council also takes note of the Reflection Group’s contribution in this area.

    It stressed the need to continue encouraging disarmament and non-proliferation within the framework of the common foreign and security policy. In this connection:

    – it expresses its firm desire that the negotiations for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty be completed no later than June 1996;

    – it supports an immediate start to negotiations for a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (cut-off);

    – it welcomes the adoption, in the first round of the Conference to review the 1980 Convention on Inhumane Weapons, of a new protocol prohibiting the use of blinding laser weapons;

    – it reiterates the European Union’s wish that all its members ratify the Convention on Chemical Weapons at the earliest opportunity so that it can come into force shortly.

    OSCE

    The Union welcomes the results of the OSCE Budapest Conference which are intended to reinforce the structures and capacities of the OSCE so that it can fulfil its ever-increasing number of tasks, particularly in the field of preventive diplomacy.

    It reiterates the European Union’s intention of continuing to contribute actively to strengthening the OSCE and, in particular, to drawing up a common and comprehensive security model for the 21st century.

    The European Council welcomed the adoption on 13 December 1995 in Royaumont, at the suggestion of the European Union, of the Declaration on the process of stability and good-neighbourly relations in South-eastern Europe.

    ANDORRA

    The European Council welcomes the renewed impetus given to the Union’s relations with Andorra and calls upon the Commission to submit appropriate proposals for developing new areas of cooperation.

    TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS

    The European Council underlines the great importance of the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan signed at the EU-US Summit in Madrid on 3 December 1995 (Annex 10). It considers that this initiative constitutes a qualitative leap forward in strengthening our relations, moving on from a stage of consultations towards a new stage of concerted and joint action. It is resolved that the Union for its part should put fully into practice what was agreed in Madrid and to resume examination of this issue at the European Council in Florence.

    It welcomes the initiatives put forward at the meeting of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue in Seville.

    It hopes that other Atlantic democracies will share the goals of the New Transatlantic Agenda.

    MEDITERRANEAN

    The European Council highlights the major significance of the results achieved at the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference and calls upon the Council and the Commission to put into practice the Barcelona Declaration and Work Programme (Annex 11).

    The Barcelona Conference marked the start of a new stage in which the goal of securing peace, stability and prosperity in the Mediterranean region constitutes a common task for all parties to the new Euro-Mediterranean association. The “Barcelona spirit” must inform this on-going process, which should culminate in the conclusion of a pact for the Mediterranean.

    The European Council warmly welcomes the Agreements concluded with Tunisia, Israel and Morocco. It hopes that the negotiations under way with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon will reach a rapid conclusion, and points out that the European Union is ready to negotiate such agreements with Algeria and Syria as soon as possible. In this connection it confirms its Cannes conclusions regarding the nature of the Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area.

    It notes with satisfaction the recent presidential elections in Algeria and trusts that there will shortly be new moves towards restoring a normal political situation in the country through dialogue and the holding of free and above-board general and local elections. It notes that Algeria wishes to conclude a new association agreement with the European Union, and calls upon the Commission to submit draft negotiating directives to that end.

    MIDDLE EAST

    The European Council welcomes the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, signed in Washington on 28 September.

    The European Council deeply regrets the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and supports the undertaking given by the new Prime Minister, Mr Peres, to take the peace process forward with the same resolve. It accordingly appeals for rapid progress to be made on the Syrian track and for all parties to step up their efforts to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

    It welcomes the rapid disbursement of the EIB loans for ECU 250 million granted to the Palestine Authority, and hopes that the Commission will submit to it, at the earliest opportunity, draft directives for negotiating an agreement with the European Union. It similarly welcomes the implementation of the measures needed to coordinate the monitoring of the Palestinian elections.

    It notes with satisfaction the progress made at the Amman Economic Summit and trusts that positive results will be achieved at the Ministerial Conference for Economic Assistance to the Palestinian People, to be held in Paris on 9 January 1996.

    IRAN

    The European Union will continue to ensure that cooperation with Iran is conducted with all the guarantees necessary to avoid any contribution whatsoever to the acquisition of a military nuclear capacity.

    In the context of respect for fundamental rights and freedom of expression, the European Union will keep up its efforts, within the framework of critical dialogue, to obtain a satisfactory solution in respect of the British writer Salman Rushdie and calls upon the Iranian authorities to respond constructively to its efforts. It requests the Council to keep a close watch on the matter.

    LATIN AMERICA

    The European Council stresses the significant progress made in the process of strengthening relations with Latin America. It requests the Council and the Commission to expedite implementation of the conclusions on enhancing cooperation between the European Union and Latin America in the period 1996-2000 (Annex 12).

    It welcomes the signing in Madrid of the Inter-Regional Framework Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation between the European Union and Mercosur, the final objective of which is to achieve political and economic association.

    It emphasizes that the Joint Declaration on Political Dialogue between the European Union and Chile is to be signed shortly. This marks an important step towards the early negotiation of a new agreement directed ultimately at political and economic association.

    The European Council calls upon the Council and the Commission to begin negotiations as soon as possible with Mexico for a new political, economic and trade agreement which includes progressive and reciprocal trade liberalization, taking account of the sensitivity of certain products and in line with WTO rules.

    It also declares its interest in renewing the San José dialogue between the European Union and Central America, on the basis of the communication recently submitted by the Commission.

    It notes the wish expressed by the Andean Presidential Council to strengthen relations between the Andean Pact and the European Union, and calls upon the Commission to submit appropriate measures. It also considers an early renewal of the General Scheme of Preferences for the Central American and Andean Pact countries to be of particular importance, and asks the Council to adopt this at the earliest opportunity.

    It considers that dialogue and cooperation should be continued with Cuba in order to lend active support to the process of reform under way, to foster respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and to broaden the scope of private initiative and the development of civil society. To that end, it asks the Commission to present, in the first half of 1996, draft negotiating directives for a trade and economic cooperation agreement, which will be examined by the Council in the light of developments in the political and economic situation in Cuba.

    Lastly, it calls upon the EIB to step up its activity in Latin America in line with its financing procedures and criteria.

    LOME CONVENTION

    The European Council welcomes the signing in Mauritius on 4 November of the Agreement on the revision of the 4th ACP-EC Convention, together with the Protocol on the Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, as well as the immediate adoption of provisional implementing measures.

    AFRICA

    The European Council expresses its grave concern at the situation in Nigeria, confirms the sanctions adopted within the European Union and appeals once more to the Nigerian authorities to ensure full respect for human rights and a swift transition to democracy, failing which it reserves the right to take further measures.

    To put an end to the violence, particularly in Burundi, and to ease the return of Rwandan refugees, the European Council emphasizes the importance of national reconciliation and stability in the Great Lakes region. It restates its support for the convening of the Conference on the Great Lakes region under the auspices of the United Nations and the Organization for African Unity, as well as the rapid appointment of a new special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to Burundi.

    It welcomes the political dialogue which has begun between the European Union and the OAU, and particularly the Council conclusions of 4 December on preventive diplomacy, conflict resolution and peace-keeping in Africa (Annex 13).

    It notes with satisfaction the negotiations under way with South Africa with a view to drawing up an agreement on creating a free-trade area and highlights the importance of these negotiations being brought to a rapid conclusion.

    ASIA

    The European Council welcomes the adoption of the Council report which will serve as a basis for preparing the Europe-Asia Meeting to be held in Bangkok on 1 and 2 March 1996 (Annex 14).

    It confirms the importance which the European Union places on the development of relations with China. It notes the conclusions adopted by the Council on a long-term policy for China-Europe relations.

    The European Council reiterates its deep concern at the heavy prison sentence imposed on the Chinese human rights campaigner, Mr WEI GING XENG, and urges China to show clemency at his appeal and grant his swift and unconditional release.

    The European Union will participate, in conditions to be negotiated, in the Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organization (KEDO).

    The European Council, bearing in mind in particular the latest events in Djakarta in connection with the increased tension in East Timor, pledges support for any appropriate action which could contribute towards a just, overall and internationally acceptable solution to this issue and particularly towards the mediation efforts being made by the UN Secretary-General.

    UNITED NATIONS

    On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, the European Union expressed its continuing support for the UN as a global forum fostering mankind’s aspirations for peace, security and economic and social progress.

    The European Union, whose Member States together constitute the UN’s main financial contributor, expressed its concern in its Declaration of 25 October 1995 at the current critical financial situation of the United Nations. The European Council appeals again to all States which are members of the UN to pay their contributions to the normal budget and to peace-keeping operations, in full, on time and without conditions.

    The European Council hopes, in this connection, that progress will be made on adjustments to improve UN structures and institutions, including the Security Council.

    IV: LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EUROPE OF THE FUTURE

    THE POLITICAL AGENDA FOR EUROPE

    The European Council identified the challenges which the Member States of the European Union must meet in order to prepare Europe for the 21st century. In the next five years, we must:

    – carry out adjustments to the Treaty on European Union;

    – make the transition to a single currency in line with the timetable and conditions set;

    – prepare for and carry out the enlargement negotiations with the associated countries of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe which have applied for membership;

    – determine, in parallel, the financial perspective beyond 31 December 1999;

    – contribute to establishing the new European security architecture;

    – actively continue the policy of dialogue, cooperation and association already under way with the Union’s neighbouring countries, and in particular with Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the Mediterranean countries.

    Success in all these tasks will mean that a large community enjoying the benefits of freedom, prosperity and stability can be set up Europe-wide.

    THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

    1. The European Council received with great interest the Report by the Reflection Group, chaired by Mr Westendorp (Annex 15), which had been instructed by the European Council to prepare for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. It considers that the guidelines distilled within the Group, following a thorough analysis of the internal and external challenges facing the Union and the possible responses, constitute a sound basis for the work of the Conference.
    2. The Intergovernmental Conference will have to examine those provisions of the Treaty on European Union review of which is expressly called for in the Treaty, as well as those questions which it was decided should be discussed by the Conference, both in the Brussels and Corfu European Council conclusions and in declarations adopted at the time of interinstitutional agreements. The European Council also reaffirms the guidelines laid down at its Cannes meeting. The Intergovernmental Conference will, in general, have to examine the improvements which will have to be made to the Treaties to bring the Union into line with today’s realities and tomorrow’s requirements, in the light of the outcome of the Reflection Group’s proceedings.
    3. The European Council agrees that the formal review procedure stipulated in Article N of the Treaty will be carried out as quickly as possible so that the Conference can be officially opened in Turin on 29 March. The European Council takes note of the intention of the forthcoming Italian Presidency to adopt appropriate measures for preparing the Conference.
    4. The Conference will meet regularly, in principle once a month, at the level of Foreign Affairs Ministers, who will have responsibility for all proceedings; preparations will be conducted by a working party made up of a representative of each Member State’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and of the President of the Commission.

    The Secretary-General of the Council will make the necessary arrangements to provide secretarial support for the Conference.

    1. The European Parliament will be closely associated with the work of the Conference so that it is both briefed regularly and in detail on the progress of the discussions and can give its point of view, where it considers this necessary, on all matters under discussion. The detailed arrangements for such association will be determined by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs in line with the provisions which apply to the review of the Treaties.
    2. The representatives of those countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have concluded Europe Agreements, and of Malta and Cyprus, will be briefed regularly on the progress of discussions and will be able to put their points of view at meetings with the Presidency of the European Union to be held, in principle, every two months. The European Economic Area and Switzerland will also be briefed.

     

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Madrid – 16 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Madrid, held on Saturday 16th December 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words at the outset. Over the last few European summits, at Essen, Cannes, Majorca and now at Madrid, I think the European Union has taken a number of realistic steps. Immediately in front of us at the moment are some fairly historic challenges – enlargement, economic competitiveness, economic and monetary union and fundamental policy reform. In every one of those areas the Union has yet to work out clear and realistic policies and what I wish to see is practical answers to the real problems that lie in front of us. I think those practical answers are what will be the key to a successful Europe, a Europe that works, that isn’t divided, that becomes a haven of prosperity and stability. And that is what I think people would wish to see from Europe. It is why, in my judgment, the European Union exists and it is where Britain’s national interests lie.

    I think at Madrid we have taken some further useful steps. On economic and monetary union, it is now increasingly understood, though I have to say it isn’t universally acknowledged, that agreeing a reference scenario, as we have done over the last couple of days, isn’t sufficient. There has to be a clear appreciation as well of where that timetable leads. And that of course is the merit of the study that we agreed today that should begin shortly under the Italian Presidency. And the purpose of that study is to look at the whole complex of issues that arise from a situation in which, at most, only a few member states are going to enter a single currency in 1999 or soon after. That outcome – a minority going ahead – is the only realistic scenario that you can paint on the present timetable. By 1999 only a minority, and perhaps only a very small minority, of countries will be economically ready to join a single currency.

    And that decision – whether or not to join a single currency – will be one of the biggest decisions that Europe has yet had to take. We simply cannot tumble into it like lemmings over a cliff. We have to address the hard issues that arise from what has become known as the ins and outs question, and not only address those questions, we have to get them right, because the alternative will be chaos and recrimination over a very long period.

    We need also a similar realism over enlargement of the Community. Here is another truly historic step for the Union. Britain has always been a fervent supporter of enlargement, I am sure it is right, it could and it should be the major step forward in extending Europe’s prosperity and security for this generation and for future generations.

    But there are some hard realities to confront. The plain truth is that if we enlarge at the next stage to a Union of some 20 or 25 members, we will bust the bank unless we have quite significant policy reform, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and reform of the way in which we pay for the so-called structural and cohesion funds.

    I don’t believe it can be in anyone’s interest to have the new applicants provoke a budgetary crisis by the simple act of joining the European Union. And the figures speak for themselves. In a Union of 20 members, the Common Agricultural Policy will cost tens of billions of Ecu, on top of the 36 billion Ecu the CAP costs already each year. As to the structural and cohesion funds, we calculate that if there is no reform, the extra cost of 10 new members could be some 38 billion Ecu per year on top of the 33 billion Ecu that we expect it to cost in 1999.

    Simply to state those figures is to show how impossible it is for the European Union to begin to meet them, they are astronomical sums and they are sums which our citizens can’t and won’t accept, and I see no enthusiasm, looking around the membership of the European Union, to pay larger net sums into the European coffers. I have not formally called for volunteers to pay more, but I am sure if I did there would not be many forthcoming.

    That policy reform is not an obstacle to enlargement, on the contrary it is necessary to make enlargement both possible and affordable. And we have to start work on this as soon as possible and I am delighted that we have agreed to take the first steps in that direction.

    We have also made some useful progress in other areas important to us: employment policy, competitiveness, deregulation, subsidiarity, a very good discussion on that last evening over dinner, and so on. We have agreed the procedures for launching next year’s Intergovernmental Conference and I was very pleased that without any dissent, and with some enthusiasm, our partners agreed my joint initiative with Jacques Chirac to fight drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

    Let me just say a further word about the opening theme. The European Union needs to be very careful to make sure it doesn’t become divorced from its citizens because its ambitions and its language become too remote from ordinary people. We have to learn the lesson of the Maastricht Treaty where in my judgment we went too far, too fast, for public opinion and I don’t just mean in the United Kingdom, I mean in most of the countries of the European Union as well.

    We are faced with a series of interlocking challenges over the next few years and we will need to get the balance right in the Union. I don’t believe we will do so without facing down some of the pretensions which have from time to time infected European policy. What I wish to see in Europe is a rolling tide of realism about policy and I think much of our work this weekend has helped to achieve that.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Don MacIntyre):

    Prime Minister, you have indicated 3 times that you are not intending to rule out British membership of EMU during the next parliament, can I ask you about a referendum and whether it is conceivable that your government would enter EMU without a referendum; and secondly, since you have canvassed the possibility of a referendum before, would you expect, if one took place, that the Cabinet would act in it with a collective voice and take Cabinet responsibility?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never ruled out the possibility of a referendum, I have always said that is a possibility. If and when policy changes I will let you know, Don.

    QUESTION (James Cox, BBC World this Weekend):

    Do you privately believe, or perhaps hope, that the single currency won’t happen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a question of private beliefs and hopes, neither is it a question of the timetable. The question is whether it will work and whether it is right, and at the moment we simply don’t have the information to make a proper judgment on that. I am in favour of the European Union, I have been in favour of the European Union since we first applied to join it, I have never changed my mind about that. I think Britain’s place is in Europe and I think we are better off in Europe and Europe is better off with us than without.

    But that doesn’t mean I agree with each and every aspect of European policy, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I look at European policy uncritically. And the concern that I have had about economic and monetary union is that the impact of economic and monetary union, not just on the members who go into it but on the whole of the European Union just simply has not yet been properly thought through. We have just come from a meeting with the 10 or 11 applicant countries. None of those is going to be in economic and monetary union, not now, not when they join the Community, not for a long time afterwards. What does economic and monetary union mean for their membership of the European Union? What does it actually mean for the existing structure of the European Union? What does it mean for the division between an inner core and a further ring of people who aren’t members? What does it mean for trying to ensure that we get economic convergence, which we have sought for the last 20 years?

    People don’t yet know the answers to that. Now on many of those answers I am sure the technical questions can be satisfactorily resolved, but they are not resolved yet, indeed they are not even addressed yet. And I think before you can make a balanced judgment on what will be the most important European decision we will be called on to make for very many years to come, we need to know the answers to those questions. And I am not going to commit the government either way until we have examined those questions, until I know what the answers to those questions are.

    QUESTION (George Brook, The Times):

    Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us his opinion that it was 60/40 likely that in 1999 monetary union would start, what is your assessment of the odds?

    PRIME MINISTER

    I have no idea, I am not a bookmaker, the Chancellor knows more about these things than I do. But a minority may go ahead, we have said that before, we have said a minority may go ahead. I will offer you very long odds, much longer than 60/40 either for or against, very long odds against, that a majority of the European Union are not ready in 1999 and I doubt there will be any takers amongst my fellow Heads of Government for that proposition.

    QUESTION (Tony Bevans):

    How do you view the prospect of a Commission campaign to sell the idea of a European currency to the British public next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for the Commission. I doubt that a Commission campaign is going to make a great deal of impact frankly either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and neither do I think the choice of name would particularly help a campaign here or elsewhere.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    You have talked about the problem between the ins and the outs, but isn’t there a risk of Britain being even further out because you have ruled out any entry into an exchange rate mechanism before going in?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And a very sensible proposition indeed. An exchange rate mechanism was used as a means to an end, it isn’t the end. We have seen it as a means to an end and it wasn’t successful. We have seen it wasn’t successful not just for the United Kingdom, but right across Europe we saw it wasn’t successful and we are not going back in it.

    QUESTION: (Elinor Goodman, CH4 TV):

    You have made a lot throughout this meeting of the need to address the problems of the “ins and outs” but as I understand it the final communique will make a fairly brief reference to that study. Are you convinced that you have actually convinced your colleagues that there are real problems?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sure! I don’t think there is a shadow of doubt about it and if I can remind you, Elinor, before I raised this question at Majorca no-one had heard of “ins and outs”, it wasn’t even considered, nobody raised the subject, nobody bothered to give a moment’s thought to what happened to the countries that chose not to join or weren’t able to join. Now it has been a central part of the debate. It is going to be examined in the Italian Presidency, you doubtless saw what Prime Minister Dini said in his own Parliament not after his meeting with me in Italy last week but before his meeting with me in Italy last week and it has been raised by a number of other Heads of Government as well.

    There is no doubt there are real problems there and they are a matter of concern not just to me – though they are a matter of concern to me – but to a lot of other countries as well and we will have a full and complete discussion of those problems and a determination of them, I hope, before anybody is unwise enough to take precipitate decisions.

    QUESTION: (Elinor Goodman):

    On that point, are you satisfied that if the inquiry can’t come up with satisfactory answers, you could actually stop a hard core going ahead?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can’t stop other countries doing things if they choose to do them. If other countries choose to do something that is economically foolish, then it is extremely difficult to stop them. What we can do and what we are doing is bring to people’s attention what the implications of what they are seeking to do are for them and for others. Of course, if some of these don’t meet the Maastricht criteria, then there is a wider opportunity to express a view as to whether they should go into a single currency but if a small number of countries meet the Maastricht criteria, they are sovereign nations just like the United Kingdom and they can make their decision to go in if they wish and we can make our sovereign decision to go in or not go in as we wish.

    QUESTION (John Palmer):

    Prime Minister, I have got a bit of a problem understanding the basis on which you say with such confidence that only a tiny minority will go ahead to the third phase of economic and monetary union. In the last hour, I have heard the Austrian Chancellor, the Swedish Prime Minister, the Finnish prime Minister and indeed the Irish Taoiseach all say with perfect confidence that they are going to join and among the candidate countries you met today the Cypriots and Maltese claim – perhaps they are deluding themselves – they have already qualified and the Estonians will qualify in a month’s time according to the Maastricht criteria. It looks as though either they are all suffering from collective delusion or the numbers may be rather bigger than you think.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the numbers are not higher than I think and you need to have a look at the Commission reports and you will see that, John. If you actually look at the details of the Maastricht criteria and consider the political debate as well, there is barely a government across Europe who will not for their own domestic reasons say: “Yes, of course we think we are going to meet the criteria!” and you know as well as I do, John, why that is. They say they are going to meet the criteria because the moment they say they are not going to the meet the criteria they lose the domestic political impetus to carry out the convergence policies because they are very painful and difficult in their own countries. You know that and I know that and so do they know that.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Prime Minister, what serious hope do you see of CAP and Structural Funds reform, how do you think it might come about and aren’t you worried that this Council has sent a very negative message to the former Soviet bloc countries who want to become members of the European Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think that is right about sending a negative message. We have just had lunch with them and the agreement is that for all of the applicant countries without exception the Commission will begin to frame an opinion, an examination of their economy and their capacity to join. We hope that is going to be completed round about the end of the IGC – May, June 1997 – and soon after that we would be able to see as a result of those opinions which are the nations most likely to be able to go ahead in the near future.

    As far as the CAP is concerned, there clearly is an inter-relationship there but I think the realistic point is that unless there is reform of expenditure it would be extremely difficult to cope with the impact of large numbers of new members coming in so in the interests of getting them in we do need to have to enmesh the reform of the CAP and the Structural and Cohesion Funds, and agreement to put work in hand was reached over the last day or so.

    QUESTION (Spanish Radio):

    After what happened in the Balkans and knowing that you talked about this matter yesterday at dinner, don’t you think that it is necessary for the European Union to have a common foreign affairs policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sure! We are very much in favour of a common foreign policy but it has to be a common foreign and defence policy by consensus. Foreign policy and defence policy are intrinsically sovereign matters for the nation state and it is not conceivable for British foreign or defence policy to be determined by a qualified majority vote in Brussels; that is not an option but where we can reach a common agreement it is very sensible to do so and we think there are ways in which we can improve the working of a common foreign and security policy and we will be producing options at the intergovernmental conference.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson):

    Prime Minister, you said you would consider the idea of a referendum but one thing I can’t quite work out is if there were to be such a referendum when it would happen. The Chancellor has said that we may have to decide by the beginning of 1998 whether or not we want to go into stage 3. Am I right in thinking that a referendum would have to take place therefore before the beginning of 1998?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think you are confusing two things. If there were to be a referendum, the time for a referendum would be after the British Cabinet had decided that it wished to recommend going in and it would then seek an endorsement of that in a referendum were there to be one but as you know, we have kept that open, no decision has yet been made on it.

    QUESTION (Toby Helm):

    There are many right-wingers in your party who were hoping that you would have been prepared to rule out British entry into a single currency during the lifetime of the next Parliament. You have now categorically said that you are not going to do that and there are some who are already showing signs of being rather restive back home. What message have you got for them this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have explained why I don’t think it would be wise to rule out going into a single currency or many other policies during the period of the next Parliament, policies of that importance, and the reason is really very straightforward and it is a reason I think that all my colleagues will understand.

    In the European debate, Britain is one of the big countries, we have an important voice in the European debate. I have no intention of letting that voice be stilled on the most important European issue, the most contentious European issue that lies immediately in front of us. If I had said a year ago: “We are not going into a single currency!” I would not over the last few weeks at Majorca and here have been able to win the argument for a proper consideration of what will happen if a minority go ahead on the “ins and outs” question. I would have had no voice, my colleagues would have said to me “But you said you are not going into it, it is nothing to do with you!”. That is no position for one of the great European countries to find itself in.

    We are in a classically advantageous position. We can stay in the argument right up until the last moment but uniquely amongst our colleagues, we have a treaty right to say we are not going to enter a single currency if we don’t think it is in the British national interest to do so and the fact that I am not ruling it out now should not be mistaken. It is not an indication that we have made our minds that we are going to go ahead, by no means is it that and nobody should read it as that. We will make up our minds when the facts are in front of us – and they aren’t yet. The option of saying no is with us and we can exercise that if we choose to do so, if we believe it the right thing to do at any time in the next Parliament but it would in my judgement be folly for the United Kingdom, one of the big countries of Europe, to say at this stage we are going to exclude the British voice from a matter as important as this for Britain and for the rest of Europe because it isn’t just a matter for the countries that go in. If a small number go in, it is going to have an impact on those that don’t go in as well so our voice is going to be there and it is going to be heard and I have made that clear in the House of Commons and I am delighted to repeat it today.

    QUESTION (Joe Murphy):

    Prime Minister, some of your colleagues have mooted the possibility that the manifesto might contain a commitment to have some form of public consultation before joining EMU which might be a referendum or might be another general election. Would you rule out that possibility?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We haven’t remotely got near a general election yet and if I can let you into a deep and dark secret, we haven’t yet prepared the manifesto. When we come to the manifesto, we will look at those options. I have indicated some things that won’t be in but we haven’t discussed it in detail yet.

    QUESTION (Robert Peston):

    Prime Minister, you have indicated recently your concern particularly for the countries outside – “the outs” – of the sort of currency turmoil that we might see unless certain questions are resolved. If, nonetheless, some of these questions aren’t resolved but a number of countries press on with monetary union, do you think that the people on the inside are going to be in a stronger position or the people on the outside?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    At this moment, who can tell? If they proceed with a currency union and it isn’t successful, there is absolutely no doubt about the chaos that will be caused inside the countries that took part in monetary union but that would ripple outside as well. The argument that I keep putting to my European colleagues and about which I feel extremely strongly is although they have a sovereign right to go in if they meet the Maastricht criteria and chose to do so, it would be extremely unwise of them and extremely unfair to the rest of Europe to contemplate doing so until we know what the implications would be for everyone. We don’t have that study yet. I have asked repeatedly for that study, I have argued for that study, we are now going to get it. When we have got it, we might be able to make a more measured judgement to your question because I agree it is an extremely important question and we should not proceed until we know the answer but we can’t give you a proper answer – other than a guess – until we have done the work that I have been asking for and that is now going to be [short section of the rest of the Prime Minister’s reply is missing].

    QUESTION (Robert Peston):

    Would you like to make that guess for me now, as it were?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have given it careful consideration, Robert, and no, I wouldn’t like to make that guess for you now.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Madrid – 15 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Madrid on Friday 15th December 1995.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you give us some indication of the problem areas that you might be pointing out this morning to the rest of the people here if a small group goes ahead? What are the sort of areas that might raise difficulty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a whole range of areas. If I could just illustrate one. Let us presuppose there are a small number of countries that go ahead with a new single currency and a larger number of countries that don’t. The probability is that the single currency would become progressively stronger, certainly against many of the weaker European countries. There is then the danger of competitive devaluation and retaliatory protectionism across the Community. And the self-evident worry about that, a very real worry, is that the single market itself could become damaged, if not destroyed. Now that is a matter that is one of the greatest creations of the European Union, it is very important that it isn’t. That is by no means the only illustration but it is one that is readily explainable.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to tell your colleagues in Europe that a single currency would be bad for Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that is not what I am saying to people. I am saying that we have to examine what the implications of a single currency are. There is a possibility that some countries will be ready to go ahead in 1999, that is certainly possible, a minority of countries might do that. But what is the most important thing is to determine what that will mean for the whole of Europe. It is not just going to be a matter for the countries that go ahead, it will have an implication on countries right across the European Union and it will fundamentally change it. It will be the most important single monetary decision taken across Europe within living memory, so it has to be right. And my concern has always been that many of the things that need to be examined quite frankly have not yet been properly examined. Some of them will be solvable, others more difficult, but they must be examined.

    QUESTION:

    What is your own personal preference for the name of the new single European currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard it as very much a secondary issue, to be honest. It seems to me rather odd to name the baby before the pregnancy. It is I think a secondary issue. There are several names in the running, Euro is certainly in the running, that is probably the majority choice at the moment. I could live with that. I think frankly it is a fairly uninspiring name for people right across Europe. I would prefer to have something more dignified with a European history – the florin, shilling, crown, something of that sort – but I repeat it is really a secondary issue.

    QUESTION:

    On enlargement, what kind of safeguards do you hope to get in terms both of the CAP and of structural funds in Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think we are going to be discussing enlargement today. I think we are discussing enlargement when the central and east European countries join us for luncheon tomorrow. I am very keen to see the European Union enlarge, I think that is an historical opportunity for this generation of politicians that we ought not to let go, it is by far the most important thing that lies in front of us at the moment. So I hope we will discuss that tomorrow and consider how to enlarge. It will clearly be gradualist, we will need to take in countries, in their interest as well as ours, when they are ready to join. And so self-evidently we will have to look at what that may mean for structural funds, and who has them, and how much, and of course reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

    QUESTION:

    On the single currency, are they rushing it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are very keen to reach a conclusion and many of them feel that if there is artificial delay then the matter will go off the boil. So I think we have to accept that many of them see advantages in the single currency and they are very keen to do so.

    So I don’t think it is a confrontational matter of them rushing it, us delaying it. We are looking at it in a very pragmatic way. Is it right for Europe? What is its effect on Europe? Is it right for the United Kingdom? What would its effects be on the United Kingdom? Those are the matters that concern me rather than the question, is it too soon, is it too late? The question is: Is it right and when would it be right? Those are the questions.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 20 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, held in London on Monday 20th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    First of all this evening, Lord Mayor, may I thank you and the Sheriffs for agreeing to move your banquet from its traditional date. I greatly appreciate your courtesy in doing so but I must tell you I spent most of last Monday evening hoping that none of you turned up here to an empty Guildhall!

    This evening, I want to talk about some aspects of our nation’s future. I shall not this evening talk of Northern Ireland though I hope very soon to do so with the Irish Prime Minister and the mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland. Tonight, I want to talk about some of the ways in which the United Kingdom as we meet here this evening stands at a crossroads. In the next few years, we, must make choices, choices that may shape our country for generations. So far, debate on these has been limited, too often trivial stories dominate the news, too often the truth gets in the way of a good story. I believe the British public deserves better than that; they need to be told about the prospects and the problems that lie ahead; they need to have the options set out before them plain and unvarnished with common sense answers and in some aspects I will seek to do that this evening.

    First, jobs and competitiveness. Today, the greatest challenge to our competitiveness comes from Asia and from China. The centre of gravity in world trade is shifting, shifting I think perhaps more rapidly than many people realise. Practically half the world’s people are emerging into vigorous industrial economies, they can offer new markets to us, they can offer new opportunities to us provided we are prepared to go out and claim them. But there is downside to those new opportunities because these new countries will also threaten to relegate an uncompetitive Europe to a far lesser role than it is privileged to play today.

    My Lord Mayor, we have no automatic right to prosperity. We must earn it or we will lose it in the years that lie ahead. That is why it is my aim to turn Britain into the unrivalled enterprise centre of Europe. Let me discuss some of the wars we might make that aim a reality.

    The heart of the matter is that there must be a limit to the share of national income that Government spend on behalf of the nation and there must be a limit to what they take from the nation in tax. Today’s fastest-growing economies have a very clear lesson for us: by keeping spending down, they have kept taxes down and low taxes are the best incentives for business to invest and this is our aim, the less we take in tax the more we can encourage enterprise. Enterprise means that employers can afford to employ people and effort is rewarded. That enterprise creates the living standards and funds the public services that we all care about.

    In the mid-1970s, Government spent around 50% of our national income. We have brought that down to around 42% today, 10% below the average for the rest of the European Union. Because of the steps that we have taken to reform welfare and to encourage people to save themselves for their pensions, I expect that gap to widen further over the coming years. So we are doing quite well but not well enough. We cannot afford to compare ourselves with our European neighbours alone. Both America and Japan, crucial world competitors of this country, spend less and tax less proportionately than we do.

    Our aim is to go further still and get public spending below 40% of national income and keep it there and if we are to do that we have to make tough choices between competing priorities. The State cannot – and in my judgement the State should not – try and do everything. We need to find new, more efficient ways of delivering public services and capital investment.

    When the private sector takes responsibility and bears the risk, it is generally more efficient than the public sector. That, of course, is the underlying reason behind the Private Finance Initiative in which the City of London had such a vital role to play. Private finance already is a significant reality. By the end of this financial year, we shall have signed contracts under the Private Finance Initiative worth over £5,000 million. We are applying new ideas of private finance to one area of Government spending after another. It is already, of course, My Lord Mayor, well established in the Health Service for example where 25 schemes of over £25 million each are already in the pipeline.

    Transport, crucial for the City and crucial for the country, is another rich area for private finance. I can tell you we have passed another critical milestone today. Subject to contract, we have selected the winning bid to design, build, finance and operate the upgrade between Newcastle and Carlisle. Another three major new road projects will follow, making a first tranche of £400 million and we have encouraging bids for a further four on top of that.

    So private finance is not a passing fancy, private finance is here to stay; it will play an increasing part in capital investment in the future and I am determined to break down the barriers that currently have existed within Government for too long and enable the City to play the role that it has been denied from playing for far too long.

    My Lord Mayor, an international enterprise economy is the only way we can offer lasting security and prosperity to our people. Free trade is in our blood, it is in the City’s blood and I believe that gives us a unique advantage as we look to the future. To make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe means pursuing our historic role as a global trading nation and that is why developing North Atlantic free trade and strengthening our links with Asia and Latin America are so crucially important to our own future but the market on our doorstep is Europe. Our task is to persuade the rest of Europe to take the enterprise road as well.

    From next spring until probably the summer of 1997, the European Union will again be reviewing the treaties in an intergovernmental conference. Many of you feel, I am sure, that it is too soon after Maastricht for yet another conference. You might say that but I couldn’t possibly comment! So I don’t expect the intergovernmental conference to be a very wide-ranging review. I would like it to focus on specific areas where some modest improvements are attainable. We are already mapping out common ground with like-minded countries. Last month, President Chirac and I identified some areas where the conference should focus: a more effective common foreign and security policy; the reinforcement of subsidiarity, the right to have more decided domestically in host nations rather than at the European level; strengthening of the role of national parliaments and intergovernmental cooperation in the fight against crime and against drugs. These are areas where Britain and France aim to work together and where we also share much common ground with Germany.

    These issues are important but they are not the great issues facing Europe at next month’ s summit in Madrid and thereafter I see three great issues: how to be competitive and to work; how to enlarge the European Union further across the Continent of Europe; and, of course, the implications for us and Europe of a single currency.

    Let me turn first to competitiveness. Britain used to be seen by many as the poor performer. Today we have some of the most successful companies in Europe in steel, cars, electronics and we are attracting by far the bulk of foreign investment beyond Europe into Europe and from Europe into the United Kingdom. Britain leads the world in telecoms and media, we are in the vanguard of information technology and as we meet here this evening, we now have more of our people in jobs and fewer unemployed than any major European country, better than Germany and far ahead of other countries where employers are dragged down by high social costs.

    The Social Chapter is not simply a set of principles, it is a set of policies which, whatever else their supporter may claim for them, add to costs and cost people their jobs. Nor is it a pick-and-mix option. The great bulk is decided by qualified majority voting; that means Britain cannot block proposals on our own even if we are opposed to them, there is no national veto and it is for those reasons that the Government oppose the Social Chapter.

    We need here a climate where business – and perhaps especially small business – can prosper to create new jobs and to help business grow. If Europe competes it can prosper. It will be immensely damaging if Europe ignores the competition from the Far East. That competition is real. We cannot just pretend that it isn’t out there waiting to take our markets from us. To do so would be folly and if we were to do so, then Europe would surely get left behind.

    So My Lord Mayor, if others in Europe bind themselves into uncompetitive economic and social structures, Britain will not join them. We are not going to put our economic success at risk and I shall take that message clearly and concisely to the conference in Madrid next month.

    My Lord Mayor, too often and too simplistically that sort of message is taken as anti-European, nationalistic, seeing Europe as a trading area and no more. I say to you, My Lord Mayor, it is none of those things. I want Europe to succeed. We have gained greatly by being part of the European Union and there is a great deal more for this country to gain as a member of that great Union but I believe to maximise the benefits for us and for the rest of Europe it is right to set out the difficulties and to set out what needs to be done.

    That brings me to the second question, enlargement of the European Union. I believe that we must spread stability and democracy across a wider Europe. Eastern and Central Europe have been the cockpit of war throughout the centuries but now we have an historic opportunity to bind them into a single market and the democratic embrace of Western Europe and if we are able in this generation of politicians to achieve that, we will bring for our children and our grandchildren a security and prosperity that our fathers and our grandfathers could only have dreamed of. That is the possibility that lies ahead of us and that is why enlargement of the European Union remains a vital objective. Europe has agreed this in principle, now it must face up to what it means in practice.

    The problems are formidable. As Europe enlarges, the Common Agricultural Policy as it stands will be increasingly unaffordable. I put it mildly, reform will not be easy in the European Union of the Common Agricultural Policy but it is essential. The fledgling economies of Eastern Europe have already come a long way in a very few short years yet they will still need help to develop, still need help to survive alongside the competitive aspect of a free market in the single market of Western Europe but if help is to go to these newcomers, where will the help come from? How will it be accepted if some existing member countries of the Union are told there is less help for them or if other Members are asked for larger contributions to assist the new members? These issues must be addressed, they must be addressed if Europe is serious in its promises to Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Cyprus and the other aspirant nations waiting to join the European Union.

    Enlargement is complex enough on its own but at the same time we must grapple with an even more complex and politically-charged debate – the question of a single currency. Some are passionate about this, others have profound doubts. Britain, I am glad to say, has a choice. We can decide whether to stay out or opt in but whatever choice we make – in or out – one thing is certain: if there is to be a single currency, it will affect Britain and it will change Europe fundamentally. Not all members will join or could join. Only a minority could meet the criteria on the present timetable – a point I think that is now accepted right across Europe – but if some went ahead while others did not, the Union would be divided between those countries which adopted the single currency and those which remained outside it. In some areas of policy, such variable geometry may be sensible, indeed inevitable, but it needs to be thought through and so do its implications.

    For instance, how would a single currency and the currencies or the rest of the Union co-exist? How would Europe’s institutions serve the interests of those countries which adopted the single currency and of those who did not? What would it mean for the Community budget? What would its implications be for the single market that has been of such benefit to every member of the European Union?

    Attentive listeners will notice I did not ask what will be the name of the single currency; I left that question out because it is, to be frank, a convenient distraction from the issues that matter most and those issues must be answered before a single currency goes ahead. The price of error would be too high for Europe individually and collectively. This is something all of us, even the most enthusiastic advocates, need to consider. The time has come to answer these questions so that the Union can expand and reform successfully, so that stability and democracy are extended to millions more Europeans who are desperate to move from Central and Eastern Europe into the embrace of the European Union and to whom we have made a promise that in due time they will be welcome and they need to be answered so that Europe can compete with the rest of the world and win because our living standards today and our children’ s living standards tomorrow depend upon us successfully meeting that challenge.

    Europe must not become an economic museum; it must and it can become a power-house and that is the purpose to which we must drive our policy and European policy as a whole. There is no point standing on the sidelines carping and moaning about things we don’t like. When I said we needed to be in the heart of Europe, I meant it for this reason: if we are in the Heart of Europe we can influence Europe, from the sidelines of Europe we cannot and we need that influence in Europe in the interests of every single member of this country.

    My Lord Mayor, I said there were choices to be made. They must be made on the basis of a cool assessment and clear facts. Emotion is heady stuff but it often makes for poor policy. A cool assessment and clear facts is what we must look at and that is the basis upon which the Government will approach European policy, the only basis that is undeniably in the British interest.

    These challenges are real, complex and often uncomfortable but they are at the centre of the choices that we face about our nation’s future; they must be addressed and they must be at the centre of our national debate and I, My Lord Mayor, intend to ensure that they are.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Chirac, held in London on Monday 30th October 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome you to this press conference. This has been my seventh meeting with President Chirac in the last 6 months and on this occasion he has brought a very powerful team of his Ministers with him.

    This morning our Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers, Finance Ministers, Transport Ministers, have all held separate discussions and subsequently reported to us about them. Collectively we have reached a number of wide ranging decisions.

    Let me just firstly say that this morning the President and I visited RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe. And we did so for two special reasons. Firstly, to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group; and secondly, to present decorations to General and General Rose who worked so successfully for so long together in Bosnia.,

    I think that that ceremony, both the inauguration of the Air Group and the joint award of Honours, illustrates the increasingly close partnership that is developing between France and the United Kingdom. It is a global partnership and that theme of global partnership has been the dominant theme throughout this summit. Let me set out precisely what I mean by that.

    Britain and France are both European countries a worldwide outlook. We are the only nuclear powers in Western Europe. We each make a huge contribution to the overall defence of Europe. We are the largest European contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. We are Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and participants in the Economic Summits. And we both have obligations to parts of the world, like Africa, where we have long-standing and historic ties.

    In defence, upon which we spent a great deal of our time this morning, the President and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.

    Step by step in defence, our approaches are moving closer together. In defence procurement, Britain has a wider range of joint projects with France than with any other country. We are discussing together the most effective structures for European defence, drawing on the lessons that we have learned In Bosnia.

    The Franco-British Euro-air Group is one bilateral dimension. We have decided on another – new arrangements for the Royal Navy and the French Navy to exercise and to train together.

    We have made important progress in deepening our nuclear cooperation. Our aim is to strengthen deterrence whilst retaining the independence of our nuclear forces. This deepening of cooperation will strengthen the overall European contribution to deterrence.

    Our Armed Forces, taking all aspects together, are closer today than at any time in the last 50 years, and the President and I shall look for yet further defence cooperation.

    We discussed the full range of European questions. We have a different approach to some of those questions, but we agreed to work together on a number of aspects at the Intergovernmental Conference. Subsidiarity is an area where we have a shared interest and concern. Subsidiarity – that is keeping or returning decision-making to the national level. We discussed, and have a common interest, in a more effective common foreign and security policy based on an intergovernmental agreement. We have a common approach to justice and home affairs matters and for the role of national parliaments. And we agreed to continue discussion on these and a number of other aspects that we are likely to face at the Intergovernmental Conference.

    We spent some time discussing the removing of regulations and red tape. We both agreed that small businesses had a vital role to play in our economies as generators both of employment in the future and of growth. And we have decided therefore to launch a joint initiative to reduce burdens on business and will invite businessmen from both countries to contribute to that work.

    Both of us have long, historic and very strong interests in Africa. We are launching today a joint initiative on conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Africa. We shall help African countries to develop their own capabilities and shall invite Western European Union partners to join us in sending advisory teams to Africa.

    You should, I hope, find on your chairs a detailed note of further joint approaches which we will take in Africa. These include a number of matters which you may wish to raise in questions but will not detain you with now.

    Let me just highlight four others of the many subjects we discussed.

    The first of these is Bosnia. We will continue working closely together on Bosnia and will both make a large contribution to the peace negotiations and the implementation of a peace settlement.

    Second, terrorism. I deplore the recent bombings that there have been in France. I have promised President Chirac every possible assistance and we have agreed on specific steps to enhance cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in dealing both with terrorism and with organised crime.

    On United Nations reform, about which we both spoke at the UN meeting just a few days ago, we both want to see effective follow through to the work of the G8.

    And finally, on a very positive note, we are launching the Entente Cordial Scholarship Scheme. This is an imaginative scheme that will be privately funded to help young people in Britain and in France to study in each other’s language and in each other’s country.

    Those are just the sketchy headlines of what has been, I think we both believe, a particularly productive summit.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I have nothing to add to the substance of what the Prime Minister has said, I have nothing to change in what he has said.

    As to the specific details, we shall be happy, both of us, to take questions from the press and I am very happy to welcome members of the British, French and other press corps as well.

    But let me make one comment, if I may, to start with. I have been attending French/British meetings for many years now and I have followed how these meetings have progressed and I am most struck by the sea-change which has occurred in our discussions. In Franco/British relations today there is no trace whatsoever of a gracility of ill humour. I think it has become quite natural for us to talk about everything, to discuss everything frankly and openly, to discuss matters which bring us together as well as matters which can divide us. But there is no drama about it, it happens quite naturally and openly.

    And on an increasing number of subjects all the time we have increasingly convergent views on these issues which are the challenges for our countries in the future. In other words, we have a greater and greater awareness all the time of the increasing solidarity of the destiny of our two countries, and that is extremely pleasant, this friendly atmosphere, this atmosphere of friendship which goes beyond us politicians but which concerns our countries and our systems. And I am very struck and impressed by this increasing closeness between France and Britain.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, particularly on the point of terrorism, do you think the British government is doing everything it can to prevent a spill-over from the Algerian war taking place in Britain and to stop Britain being used as a haven by Islamic radicals?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, I do not think, I am absolutely convinced that the British government is fully determined to do everything it can. I am convinced that there is excellent cooperation between the British and French services involved. And I have only thanks to express to the British authorities on these two scores.

    I would add that the Prime Minister wished to go beyond even that and proposed to me a strengthening of our cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and he also proposed to me that we should strengthen our cooperation in the fight against drugs, and I thoroughly agree with him on those two counts.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you both what the significance to Anglo/French relations, and indeed to nuclear cooperation, you find in the British decision to back French nuclear testing over the protestations of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that point first. President Chirac had scientific advice about the necessity to test the French nuclear deterrent. I think on the back of that scientific advice it would have been extremely difficult for the head of any country not to have accepted that scientific advice and tested, as advised, his own nuclear deterrent. Upon that basis, I have offered the President my support for the action that he has taken. If one is a nuclear power there are certain obligations. Some of those obligations involve ensuring that the nuclear weapon is in proper order, that it is working as expected. And one does need in those circumstances to test, if that is the advice one is given. That is the advice the President was given, he accepted that advice. Frankly, I believe he had no choice and upon that basis I have offered him my support.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Support for which I am most grateful and which is also part and parcel of the solidarity of countries of the European Union. But I would also like to say that I was fully aware of the reaction that international public opinion would have when I took my decision. But the decision was absolutely inevitable for the safety and the reliability of French nuclear weapons. It would have been irresponsible of me not to take that decision. That is the negative answer to your question if you like. But there is a positive answer to your question too, which is that I am now in a position to confirm that France, as the United Kingdom, will sign the full Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and that France and the United Kingdom have both said that they will support the zero option on on-site controls, no small tests, no tests whatsoever, that France and the United Kingdom have just signed the Protocols of the Ruratonga Treaty which next spring will make it possible to declare the South Pacific a nuclear-free zone. And therefore there will be no further problem of nuclear testing.

    The United States, as you know, have agreed too to the zero option. In my recent discussions with the Russian President I understood him to say that that would be Russia’s position too. I am not answering in Russia’s place of course but I understood that would be his position. And I would not rule out China taking the same position too, and that would be a very optimistic and positive conclusion to the whole affair.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President, on behalf of France, the Americans and the British have agreed to sign the Protocols to the Ruratonga Convention. I think that is very welcome. What we can actually now see, not very far in the future, just a few months away, is an end to nuclear testing and the signature of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That is now, with luck, just a matter of months away and I think that is great progress and I am delighted about that.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow, Channel 4 News):

    When you became President, one of the earliest public pronouncements you made, or one that was recognised worldwide, was the offer to send French troops to save the people of Srebrenica. The Dutch government has today published its findings over what happened in Srebrenica and sad reading they make. The Dutch Defence Minister says that the whole concept of the so-called safe areas failed dismally. Could I ask you both whether as members of the Permanent Five Security Council of the UN you accept any culpability, any blame, for what went wrong and the fact that we are now sitting in a situation in which 8,000 citizens of that area are either dead or missing?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You are referring of course to events which occurred as I became President. I believe that the United Nations forces were not able to fulfil the role that they were supposed to play. And I think it was wrong in the past to accept that confusion between a military role and a humanitarian role and the result was that events of that kind did occur. Who was responsible? Certainly not the United Nations because the United Nations was not given to proper mandate to act. I think it was a collective responsibility, I think that the British and French governments realised that when they decided together to react to what happening, to change their policies and to set up together the Rapid Reaction Force. And a lot of observers made fun of the Rapid Reaction Force when it was announced initially, but it did make it possible to give the troops the resources they needed to attain their objective, which was a peacekeeping objective and which was I think behind the positive developments that we have witnessed since.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is perhaps sometimes a little too easy to overlook the reality that it is the British and the French, and their troops on the ground, who have played the biggest single role of turning what looked like at one stage a trans-Balkan war, and at another stage like the mass genocide and slaughter of huge numbers of people, into a position where across central Bosnia there is peace and where we can now look forward to the possibility of a peace right the way across Bosnia. That would not have happened but for the action of the British and French governments who sent the largest number of troops and sent the troops not only in the largest numbers but sent them earliest. There were also those countries who participated predominantly in the conferences that were held and that determined with the Rapid Reaction Corps to respond to some of the events that were occurring. So, no-one doubts the horrors from the early genocide and subsequently what occurred in the former Yugoslavia, but I think the British and French troops played the predominant role in mitigating the slaughter and saving lives. And I do not think it an exaggerated claim to say that but for the activities of British and French soldiers and their commanders, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people alive today who would otherwise have been dead. And I think in the scales of who did what and what the outcome was, that is something that should weigh heavily.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could you clarify this statement where you say you do not see situations arising where the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened – is that like the NATO declaration that if one country is invaded, could you tell us what it means?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think I need to elaborate a great deal on this. We are very strongly linked politically, economically, culturally and geographically, and I am not referring to the Channel fixed link. I am referring quite clearly to the fact that we are very close to each other. But clearly one cannot imagine a situation where in the immediate future or in the foreseeable future a conflict might occur in which France and Britain would not be on the same side, we will clearly be on the same side, and I think we must draw some conclusions from that strategically speaking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think really the point is quite straightforward. Neither the President nor I can conceive of circumstances in which in any way France was threatened militarily, in which the interests of the United Kingdom would not be seen to be similarly threatened. And equally the President can conceive of no circumstances in which the United Kingdom was threatened militarily that would not equally threaten the vital interests of France. And we thought it appropriate to make that point crystal clear on this occasion to exemplify the increasingly close cooperation we have in all aspects of defence.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, 50 years ago, referring to somewhat complicated relationships with General de Gaulle, Winston Churchill said: “Of all the crosses I have to bear, the cross of Lorraine is the heaviest”. I would like to ask the successor of General de Gaulle, whether this is a heavy cross to bear on your shoulders? I am referring to the increasingly Euro-sceptical policy of Her Majesty’s Government or if that policy is a relief and a comfort for you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I must say I don’t know what Euro-scepticism is – is it a fad. And in every country of the European Union, not only the United Kingdom, there is such a phenomenon. So let us be realistic about this and if one is realistic, what does one see? What one sees is that there is considerable progress in European construction. There are areas in which France and the United Kingdom have a somewhat different approach. We discuss these differences and I say we discuss these differences quite equably and openly, it is certainly not a heavy cross to bear. And there are other areas in which our views are perfectly convergent, and the Prime Minister has told you what they are, everything which concerns the construction of a Europe which is closer to its citizens, on enlargement, on other issues. On these issues we have no conflict of views whatsoever. So let us not be ideological, we are pragmatic people. We are moving ahead at our own pace but very positively and without there being any misunderstanding between us.

    QUESTION:

    To come back to terrorism I have three somewhat distinct questions. First of all, the French government has stated that it is concerned about the fact that some Islamic fundamentalists may have taken refuge in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is information to the effect that the SIS might open an office in London, the BBC announced this this afternoon. And thirdly, Abad Anas [phon], one of the founder members of SIS, is supposed to be in the UK and has made a request for political asylum. Can you comment?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first question, my answer is no. There is no difference of view between us on that. On the other questions I have no comment to make. But I would refer you back to what was said earlier on which is that I consider that cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in the fight against terrorism is absolutely first class, it is efficient and I warmly welcome it.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us about what concrete steps have been taken to strengthen cooperation between the French and British governments in the fight against terrorism?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    When it comes to the fight against terrorism, it is not customary to announce publicly exactly what one is going to do, and I am sure you will understand that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will just add one point to that. Although the President is entirely right in saying that we do not announce publicly what the cooperation is, let me just say two things to you. Firstly, the cooperation is already close; and secondly, the President and I agreed this morning on ways to make it closer yet. Terrorism is a scourge to all countries and we will work very closely in dealing with it, but I am afraid that we are not going to tell people precisely what we shall be doing.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about who might be the next Secretary General of NATO, whether it is clear that there will be a British candidate, and if there is not then can you both tell me what you think of the candidature of Ruud Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that first. We did consider the possibility not of one, I saw one British name being floated in the press, there were in fact a number of British names that we considered. But we also looked at other names that were already in the field. Dr Lubbers is not yet a formal candidate, I should make that entirely clear. But were Dr Lubbers to be a formal candidate for the Secretary General of NATO, I think he would receive strong support from the British government.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And you will hardly be surprised to hear me say that there again we share the same view.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    Prime Minister, do you agree that Euro-scepticism is a fad?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many ways to describe Euro-realism, Euro-scepticism, Euro-philyism, Euro-phobism, there are all sorts of names. I think what is important is that one looks at the problems related to Europe with a clear and open mind and decides what is the answer most appropriate to the British interest and the European interest, and that is the way the government examines them.

    QUESTION (Tom Carver, BBC TV):

    Can both Presidents tell us what this new rapprochement that seems to exist is going to do for the much vaunted Franco-German axis that we have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am grateful to be promoted to President but I fear it is not a title I can accept. I will leave the President to answer that.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The Franco-German friendship, let me put it that way, is part and parcel of our destiny for reasons of history and geography that I don’t need to elaborate on here. But also because we are two countries at the very heart of Europe it was always clear that Europe would never get anywhere unless there was a clear understanding between France and Germany. If there is no understanding between France and Germany, there will be no Europe, full-stop. But Europe is not only France and Germany, Europe is also a number of other countries and a leading country of course is the United Kingdom with its traditions, with its history. And the United Kingdom cannot be on the sidelines. Therefore the cooperation between France and Germany, the understanding between France and Germany is absolutely essential but it is not enough, there has to be something else and that something else is the British presence. Clearly that is a reflection of British interests. And I think France is in a position to facilitate that necessary synergies between the British view of things and say the German view of things. One always tends to imagine that there are very considerable differences of view, but when one gets down to them and when one looks at them very closely one realises there is no difference which cannot be reduced. And I believe that Franco-British cooperation, which is going from strength to strength every year and is gaining in strength at each one of our meetings, is one of the important points for a vision of a sound stable Europe developing strongly into the future.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Quebec referendum and what is the position of Paris and London?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The referendum is going on this very day and you will hardly expect me, nor the British Prime Minister, to make any comment on that.

    QUESTION (Magreb Press):

    Why has it taken so long for the former dominant powers in Africa to launch the present initiative, that is conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and what prompted the move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose one could always have done a good thing earlier. I think the fact that the President and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. We both in our own backgrounds have a direct interest in parts of Africa, it was a matter that naturally arose in our conversations some time ago and that we have subsequently taken forward. It clearly is important. If you look at what has happened in Africa over the last few years there are some people who will say, well it is very depressing to look at the problems in Africa. I think that is at best a half truth, and at worst a complete untruth. Because many of the changes that have taken place in Africa have been very beneficial. Many of the African governments are struggling very hard to turn away from bad economic policies to sound economic policies. Many of the African countries that were not democracies are moving towards being democracies. Of course there are some areas where things are not yet right, but a great deal of progress has been made and both the President and I would like to lend a helping hand, where we can, to that process.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And I would just add one further point to that. There was reference earlier on to Euro-sceptics, now we are talking about Afro-pessimists. But I am neither one nor the other. And as far as Africa is concerned, I think that Africa is moving ahead in the right direction. And I fear that a lot of Afro-pessimists are in fact people who are trying to withdraw from Africa and trying to shuffle off the efforts which are necessary for the development of Africa. But I am optimistic for three reasons: firstly, Africa is moving ahead in the right direction; the rule of law is gaining ground; the management of public affairs in Africa is improving every year and that is I think clear when one looks at the increasing number of agreements which are entered into with the international financial institutions; thirdly, today African nations have understood that there are two things they must do – first of all they have to take into account regional interests and they also have to be involved in conflict resolution in order to avoid conflicts as far as that is possible. And those three developments I think are liable to give greater confidence to African peoples but also to Europeans who wish to participate in the development of Africa and that is why I am an Afro-optimist.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about advances in European construction thanks to excellent Franco-British cooperation, particularly on defence matters. But when you discuss matters like the EMS, the single currency, the IGC, is that not likely to hold back European construction, is that not pragmatism too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned some of the areas in terms of what is loosely called European construction. I am always wary when people talk of European construction, it means different things to different people.

    As far as the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, I set out a series of areas where it is clear already, before the Intergovernmental Conference begins, that there is a broadly common interest between the British position and the French position. There will not be unanimity on every issue between Britain and France, or indeed I suspect between almost any two countries in the European Union, total unanimity is a very rare proposition. But there is a good deal of unanimity and we will try and build on that in the Intergovernmental Conference. There will be some things that will be unacceptable to some nations and that is a matter that will need to be determined in the conference when it begins next year.

    As far as Monetary Union is concerned, the British position on that is well known, our position has not changed. I set it out pretty clearly in the Maastricht negotiations when I obtained for the British the right to opt-out of a Single European currency if that is formed and if it is not thought to be in the British interests to join. That was the position and that remains the position.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Just one comment as far as France is concerned. Let me first of all point out, if I may, that each time a debate of this kind gets going we are told that things are going very badly. But I think it is quite beyond challenge that Europe is progressing. Some people find that Europe is not moving ahead as quickly as possible, some people say not as well as possible, but basically it is moving ahead. Soon after I became President, France was the President of the European Council and I hosted a meeting in Cannes of 15 Heads of State and Government, plus 11 Heads of State and Government of countries which may one day become members of the European Union, and I have no recollection of there ever being a venture of this kind in history. Nobody thinks today that there could be such a thing as a war in Europe, if one excludes the unfortunate affair of ex-Yugoslavia. So I think that is real progress.

    Once you have got that far, you have of course other issues to deal with – the Intergovernmental Conference, the need to adjust the European institutions to an increasing number of member countries. That is necessary. Well we shall be tackling that issue and we shall be thinking pragmatically once again about the ways in which we can succeed in that reform. And on several points France, the United Kingdom, Germany, see eye to eye, on other points there are differences. Fine. But that is what diplomats are there for and that is precisely why we agree on a certain period of time necessary to come to an agreement. But I don’t doubt that eventually we shall come to an agreement on the best institutions which are best suited to the principles of each country and I hope that Europe will be enlarged, that it will be closer to its citizens thanks to the application of the principle of subsidiarity on which both British and French and Germans fully agree.

    Then you raised the issue of the currency, a big debate on the currency. You are familiar with the position I took during the French debate on Maastricht, I came out in favour of [indistinct] today I have made it very clear that whatever efforts need to be made and of course those efforts have to be properly distributed in France, but France will meet the conditions which will enable it to become a member of the single currency on 1 January 1999 – that is the French option. And I don’t think anybody can challenge today that France has the political will to do that because it is in our interests and we believe it is in our interests because it requires us to reduce our budget deficit and it is only by reducing our budget deficits that we shall be able to rise to the challenge of unemployment, and that is my objective, to fight against unemployment. Clearly fighting against unemployment means sound management and sound exchanges. France being what it is, I believe the single currency is a positive thing for France, it is something which will enable France to fight effectively against unemployment and to maintain social cohesion, which is something also which I have stated a great deal. And I would also say that it is a great French tradition, the single currency basically is an assertion of the stability of exchange rates, that is the objective of the single currency. And France’s objective, France’s view of things, has always been in favour of the stability of exchange rates. That was one of the major hobby-horses of General de Gaulle, whom you referred to earlier on, and it remains France’s unwavering position on monetary issues.

    The British Prime Minister has just recalled his position, which we are amply familiar. The United Kingdom, which does not have the same characteristics, the same constraints as France does, does not wish to have its hands tied. It wishes to keep full freedom to take that decision if and when it feels it is in its interests to do so. And I would observe that the UK will fulfil the criteria for monetary union if it wishes to embark upon it because its economic management is sound and reasonable. So the UK will have its hands entirely free to take the decision it feels fit to take and it will take that choice when it feels appropriate to do so. I am sure we will discuss it beforehand and I am sure the British government will discuss it with its British partners. We must respect the freedom of choice of the British government in this respect.

    QUESTION:

    Could you clarify something the Prime Minister said about global partnership. Does that mean that it is easier to have common foreign policy between countries which have a worldwide presence than within the 15 countries of the European Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that was not what it was intended to convey. Though a common foreign policy, agreed by unanimity and not imposed by qualified majority vote, is a very attractive proposition for Europe.

    Clearly collectively if the whole of Europe agrees to a foreign policy then we are in a stronger position than if any one or two countries themselves agreed. But the remark I made about global partnership was not particularly geared to one aspect of policy like foreign policy, but geared to the range of interests that I set out, and the President set out, that are common both to France and the United Kingdom. We are the only two European nations that are nuclear powers, that have a worldwide interest, that sit on the United Nations Security Council, that have long-standing historical interests in large parts of the world like Africa and it is upon that basis that we have a common outlook on many problems. And it was that common outlook, based on common background, common history and common interests, that led the President and I to conclude that there was ample scope for a global partnership. And as we have indicated in defence and other areas, there are large areas that illustrate in very practical terms the extent of partnership that already exists today between Britain and France and we have both reiterated our determination to sustain those areas of agreement and to build on them wherever and whenever we think it appropriate.